On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 01:37:44PM +0200, Matthieu Imbert wrote: > Yes microseconds are available in textual mode but i do want to use binary > mode. Let me explain why: > ... > if i'm correct, it seems obvious that the second scenario is more efficient > (and less ugly).
I wouldn't bet on scenario 2 being more efficient. For this you not only need less conversions but also cheaper conversion. Now I haven't looked at this in detail, but you might spend a lot of time doing stuff that has only a marginal effect. > In scenario 2, when talking about timestamp 'official' format, i mean > timestamp expressed as number of microseconds since > 2000-01-01. But of course, it only deserves this name 'official' if it is > guaranteed to stay the same across postgresql versions and > platforms You shouldn't rely on this. Again I'd recommend using text. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
