Re: Fwd: Re: Dynamic update of a date field

On 2012-02-16, David Salisbury <salisbury(at)globe(dot)gov> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/12 7:27 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>> Musial, Jan (GIUB)<jan(dot)musial(at)giub(dot)unibe(dot)ch> wrote:
>>> smallint,month smallint,day smallint,time_stamp date); I would like to
>>
>> That's silly, use one (and only one) field, timestamp (or timestamptz)
>> Don't use never ever multiple columns for the same information!
>
> Would it not be advantageous to replicate information in the above
> form if you wanted to, say, get all records in the month of May, and
> therefore create an index on the month field? I would think that
> would be more efficient than creating a functional index on a timestamp.
> And if you're not too picky, that would give an index that couldn't
> be done on a timestamptz field, as that's mutable.

using "at timezone ...." can convert timestamptz to timestamp.
which can then be fragmented immutably for indexing using extract
or to_char.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural