On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Sheeri K. Cabral <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/31/08, Roland Bouman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Tim Soderstrom >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Works for me! Though the possibility of a more complex DURATION type >> > sounds >> > tantalizing :) >> >> >> INTERVAL is the usual keyword. > > Actually, I'm not sure limiting TIME is what we want, nor is DURATION > exactly the same as interval. Well, it can be thought as such, but let's > say I have an event whose duration is 1 day, 3 hours, 4 minutes, 5 seconds > and 10 microseconds? The duration is 27:04:05.10, but there's no way to > represent that. Specifying it as an INTERVAL would be: > > INTERVAL 1 DAY + INTERVAL 3 HOUR + INTERVAL 4 MINUTE + INTERVAL 5 SECOND + > INTERVAL 10 MICROSECOND > > I don't think this is a good way to store durations longer than 23:59:59.99, > nor do I think it's easy to compare durations of longer than 1 day.
Why would specifying or storing an interval be so necessarily tedious or limited to a single unit? I suppose this awkward syntax is based on the mysql interval syntax related to various datetime functions? This definitely shouldn't be a constraint on a real interval type. Postgres, for one, handles intervals rather well without any of these limitations. I would think similar functionality wouldn't be especially difficult for a hypothetical drizzle supported interval type. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
