Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type

From: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek(at)klaster(dot)net>
To: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
Date: 2003-02-06 11:33:48
Message-ID: 3E42481C.6050705@klaster.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Ludwig Lim wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Are there cases when a TIME data type is a better
> choice over the TIMESTAMP data type?
>
> It seems that PostgreSQL (I'm using 7.2.3)
> encourage its users to use TIMESTAMP over TIME data
> type. I said this because of the following:
> a) More functions for DATE and TIMESTAMP data types
> such as to_date() and to_timestamp(). Howver, function
> to_time() does not exist.
> b) Same amount of storage for TIMESTAMP and for
> TIME. Time with time zone even need more storage space
> than a timestamp (12 bytes vs. 8 bytes).
> c) It's harder to TIMESTAMP to TIME and vice versa,
> while its easier to cast TIMESTAMP to DATE and vice
> versa.
>
>
> thank you very much,
>
> ludwig

Probably you are right, but you can cast into timestamp before using these functions.
Do you really need to care amount of storage?
Don't forget about INTERVAL type, which is very useful for time calculations.

Regards,
Tomasz Myrta

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Iam 2003-02-06 12:01:12 get # of rows while doing SELECT with LIMIT at same time ?
Previous Message Ludwig Lim 2003-02-06 11:14:44 Re: Lock timeout detection in postgres 7.3.1