The standard prescribes a precision appended to the data type name, e.g
TIMESTAMP(0) for seconds precision, TIMESTAMP(3) for milliseconds
precision and TIMESTAMP(6) for microsecond precision.
Having 0 as the default precision will probably preserve compatibility
with existing versions?
HADB implements arbitrary precision (down to microsecond) but always
stores the values with microsecond precision in 8 bytes.
Thanks,
Roy
Brian Aker wrote:
Does making it more precise create an issue?
On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Baron Schwartz wrote:
2) What do people think about adding microsecond to the TIMESTAMP
data type
by default? This would require 4 more bytes of storage per row.
timestamp with second precision is still useful. Make a new storage
type, call it MICROTIMESTAMP or something like that. Don't break
existing behavior.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
