timestamp ?(RE: [GENERAL] scheduling table design)

oops, it's "timestamp" now (just name change).
BTW, I remember datetime is in sql92. "timestamp" is also in sql92? why
"timestamp" is better than "datetime" ? sql99(96) ?

thanks!
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Barnes wrote:

> Nay, my friend, no mistake. Rather, I have you and Kaiq to thank for
> setting me straight, and I fully intend to follow your advice. What you say
> makes sense, and I'll go with it.
>
> I will use the datetime as well.
>
> Thank you.
> David Barnes
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of
> davidb(at)vectormath(dot)com
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 11:08 AM
> To: kaiq(at)realtyideas(dot)com; Barnes
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] scheduling table design
>
>
> The advantage of (3) is that it would be extremely easy to write an
> application around. However, the inflexibility of it makes my stomach
> tighten. I agree with kaiq, I think you're making a mistake.
>
> David Boerwinkle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kaiq(at)realtyideas(dot)com <kaiq(at)realtyideas(dot)com>
> To: Barnes <aardvark(at)ibm(dot)net>
> Cc: davidb(at)vectormath(dot)com <davidb(at)vectormath(dot)com>;
> pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
> Date: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:12 AM
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] scheduling table design
>
>
> >3) is weird. it looks like a typical mistatke that use the data
> >as the schema. It is not flexible and waste of disk (ya, I know
> >it cheap. but it you waste too much!). And, more importantly,
> >you gain nothing. the "correct" table is already so simply!
> >
> >do not use date, use datetime. why? it's sql92 standard (another
> >good reason: M$sql only has datetime :-). A lot of useful functions
> >only apply to datetime, not date.
> >
> >you did not mention eventid or appointid. David or somebody else(?
> >sorry) mentioned this: do not use datetime as the primary key. It
> >makes thing complicated and lose an important feature (overlapping
> >events). those id's should be serial type (or sequecne).
> >
> >you may need another table to differentiate "event" and "appointment".
> >event is something need to happen, no time set yet. An event could
> >have many proposed appointments. -- ok, "events" and "appointments",
> >you can use your words. you got the idea. It's only needed if you
> >want differentiate them (for some fancy feature).
> >
> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Barnes wrote:
> >
> >> First, let me start off by thanking you two for the design ideas. You've
> >> been very helpful, as have Ed and Omid who focused more on laying the
> >> groundwork for approaching the problem.
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm overcomplicating things. You both seem to be suggesting a
> table
> >> something like:
> >>
> >> 1) date | doctor | time | patient_id# | reasonfor_app | kept_app |
> >> authorized
> >>
> >> with David's variation of putting the doctor and time information in a
> >> separate table so that I might have two tables:
> >>
> >> 2) date | time_doc_link | patient_id# | reasonfor_app | kept_app |
> >> authorized
> >> and
> >> time_doc_link | time | doctor | active_flag
> >>
> >>
> >> I was previously thinking that I needed to do something like creating the
> >> following table:
> >>
> >> 3) date | doctor | 0800 | 0815 | 0830 | 0845 | 0900 ....and so on every
> 15
> >> minutes
> >> where each time slot holds a reference# to an appointment database such
> as:
> >> reference# | patient_id# | reasonfor_app | kept_app | authorized
> >>
> >>
> >> Assuming I am summarizing 1) and 2) correctly-the way you suggested-then
> you
> >> two have already explained the advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those
> >> solutions compared to one another. 3) however, is fundamentally
> different
> >> in that time is a field name instead of an actual field. It is
> inflexible
> >> timewise, but does it offer any advantages such as speed or simplicity in
> >> the SQL searches? Has 3) ever been done, or is it seriously flawed
> somehow?
> >> Are there other solutions?
> >>
> >> Thank you again.
> >>
> >> David Barnes
> >> aardvark(at)ibm(dot)net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ************
> >>
> >
> >
> >************
> >
>
>
> ************
>
>