It doesn't create an issue exactly, but it seems like it could be
wasteful. It's the same problem with using a BIGINT when you only need
a TINYINT. If you're going to have a huge table, those extra 4 bytes
are going to add up and would end up being totally wasteful if you
don't need microsecond granularity.
On Dec 23, 2008, at 3:59 PM, 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
