The only real benefit is that it takes up half the space in the database (8 bytes instead of 4). There are also some querying benefits which a mysql expert could get into (easier to do range queries with, etc...).
But yeah, if you have 100 mil rows in a table, using this will save you 4 bytes, or 400 MB which I guess you could argue is neglible in the grand scheme of things, but if do it across your database, it could save you a couple gigs, which isn't too bad. Robert Walker wrote: > I stopped using TIMESTAMP due to the auto-updating that I was seeing in > a real application. However, that was way back in version 3.x of MySQL. > I did notice later that this behavior looks to have been changed. So I > suppose if you need date/times fields that don't require values before > Jan 1, 1970 they are probably okay to use. But, I still don't see much > benefit in doing so over just using DATTIME. It makes sense to me for > Rails to use DATETIME over TIMESTAMP. It's simpler, and safer to do so. > > Aryk Grosz wrote: >> Right, but that is not the reason why timestamps dont use TIMESTAMP. You >> can always create the column without auto update functionality, >> according to mysql's website. You must always have a default value for a >> timestamp, so that might be a reason why it's not used, but that doesnt >> seem like a big enough reason, IMO. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
