| From: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il> |
|---|---|
| To: | jim(at)reptiles(dot)org (Jim Mercer) |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime |
| Date: | 1999-08-18 14:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | l03130300b3e06d36a29d@[147.233.159.109] |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
At 16:33 +0300 on 18/08/1999, Jim Mercer wrote:
> i suspect this would be more efficient than date_part('epoch', timefield).
Yes, but if someday someone decides that dates should be represented in
another way, this will break, and date_part( 'epoch', timefield ) will
always return the seconds since epoch. Data encapsulation thingie.
> also, is there a reverse to this?
>
> ie. how does one inject unix time_t data into an abstime field.
Into a datetime, simply use datetime( n ). To an abstime, add an abstime()
around the former. Don't try abstime( n ) - at least it doesn't work in 6.4.
> then i bring it in using: "COPY tb USING STDIN;"
>
> it would be nice if i could do a batch of:
> "INSERT INTO tb (time_t, data1, date2) VALUES (934931604, 'aa', 'bb');"
copy is more efficient that a bunch of inserts, mind you.
Herouth
--
Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
Open University of Israel - Telem project
http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Tong | 1999-08-18 14:14:49 | CVS Import/Export |
| Previous Message | Jim Mercer | 1999-08-18 13:33:42 | Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Tong | 1999-08-18 14:14:49 | CVS Import/Export |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-18 14:02:42 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |