On 2025-10-19 20:32:07 -0600, Rob Sargent wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2025, at 2:38 PM, Rich Shepard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Oct 2025, Rob Sargent wrote: > >> I think you have to ask why those values were separated in the first > >> place. For instance if they are thought of as a pair in most queries then > >> an alteration might be in order. There can be a large one time cost if > >> these tables occur in a lot of separate sql calls in the business logic. > > > > Good point. They're in the contacts table and I use them to determine when > > to make another contact and if prior contacts were more productive in the > > morning or afternoon. > > Definitely a datetime (single value) problem, imho
Actually, to me that seems to be one of the few cases where splitting
them makes sense. I would expect typical updates to be something like
"sane time, but 6 months later" or "same day, but different time". There
might also be constraints like "not before 9am". For queries there might
be stuff like "who do I need to call today", or as Rich already
mentioned, statistics by time of the day. There are probably relatively
few queries where you need to treat date and time as a unit.
hjp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | [email protected] | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
