Re: [JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
Hmm, weird. Because I have actually used Date before, and had the time dropped off. Maybe it has something to do with the JDBC drivers conversion of java.util.Date -> jdbc type DATE -> SQL type DATE? Ohwell, it works as timestamp, so I won't worry about it for now. Thanks for the info, -David On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Victor Langelo wrote: > David Budworth wrote: > > > > >Or does PostgreSQL DATE/TIMESTAMP exactly the same? I know oracle will > >drop the time portion if the column type is DATE. > > > >-David > > > Actually Oracle will not drop the time protion if the column type is > DATE. The following is from the Oracle 8 manual. Oracle 7 says > essentially the same thing. > >The DATE datatype stores date and time information. Although date >and time information can be represented in both CHAR and NUMBER >datatypes, the DATE datatype has special associated properties. For >each DATE value, Oracle stores the following information: century, >year, month, day, hour, minute, and second. > > You need to use TRUNC(date) in order to remove the time portion (or more > accurately set it to 0). > > --Victor > ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
David Budworth wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Or does PostgreSQL DATE/TIMESTAMP exactly the same? I know oracle willdrop the time portion if the column type is DATE.-David Actually Oracle will not drop the time protion if the column type is DATE. The following is from the Oracle 8 manual. Oracle 7 says essentially the same thing. The DATE datatype stores date and time information. Although date and time information can be represented in both CHAR and NUMBER datatypes, the DATE datatype has special associated properties. For each DATE value, Oracle stores the following information: century, year, month, day, hour, minute, and second. You need to use TRUNC(date) in order to remove the time portion (or more accurately set it to 0). --Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Re: [JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
Don't worry, I already set it to TIMESTAMP. I am a little put off by Adam changing the default database mapping in his deb package. It is his choice to do this, but I will recommend to everyone that they don't use the deb package for this reason. -dain David Budworth wrote: > The problem here is that java.util.Date holds an actualy time/date. > > If you don't map it to TIMESTAMP, then you have a dataloss. > > If you want a real SQL DATE field, then use java.sql.Date (which is > a java.util.Date with the time suppressed) > > I think it would be bad policy to make the default data storage > mechanism lose data upon storage. Think about: > > Date d = new Date(); > > ejb = Home.create(d); > if (ejb.getDate().equals(d))// this is true >doSomething(); > else >doSomethingElse(); > > ejb = Home.find(PKOFEJB); > if (ejb.getDate().equals(d))// no longer true since you dropped time >doSomething(); > else >doSomethingElse(); > > So you would, in effect, be breaking application logic. > > The user would expect both .equals() to be true. > > Or does PostgreSQL DATE/TIMESTAMP exactly the same? I know oracle will > drop the time portion if the column type is DATE. > > -David > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Adam Heath wrote: > > >>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> >> >>>This is for anyone who knows Postgres out there, >>> >>>There is a patch at sf that suggest adding the following mapping: >>> >>> >>> java.util.Date >>> TIMESTAMP >>> TIMESTAMP >>> >>> >>>There is currently no mapping for java.util.Date, but there is a mapping >>>for java.sql.Date, which is: >>> >>> >>>java.sql.Date >>>DATE >>>DATE >>> >>> >>I prefer the latter. My reasoning, is that if java.util.Date is mapped to >>TIMESTAMP, then how does someone make a DATE in the database? >> >>They could use java.sql.Timestamp to accomplish that. >> >>This is what I have done for my debian packages. >> >> > > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
The problem here is that java.util.Date holds an actualy time/date. If you don't map it to TIMESTAMP, then you have a dataloss. If you want a real SQL DATE field, then use java.sql.Date (which is a java.util.Date with the time suppressed) I think it would be bad policy to make the default data storage mechanism lose data upon storage. Think about: Date d = new Date(); ejb = Home.create(d); if (ejb.getDate().equals(d))// this is true doSomething(); else doSomethingElse(); ejb = Home.find(PKOFEJB); if (ejb.getDate().equals(d))// no longer true since you dropped time doSomething(); else doSomethingElse(); So you would, in effect, be breaking application logic. The user would expect both .equals() to be true. Or does PostgreSQL DATE/TIMESTAMP exactly the same? I know oracle will drop the time portion if the column type is DATE. -David On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > > This is for anyone who knows Postgres out there, > > > > There is a patch at sf that suggest adding the following mapping: > > > > > >java.util.Date > >TIMESTAMP > >TIMESTAMP > > > > > > There is currently no mapping for java.util.Date, but there is a mapping > > for java.sql.Date, which is: > > > > > > java.sql.Date > > DATE > > DATE > > > > I prefer the latter. My reasoning, is that if java.util.Date is mapped to > TIMESTAMP, then how does someone make a DATE in the database? > > They could use java.sql.Timestamp to accomplish that. > > This is what I have done for my debian packages. > ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > This is for anyone who knows Postgres out there, > > There is a patch at sf that suggest adding the following mapping: > > >java.util.Date >TIMESTAMP >TIMESTAMP > > > There is currently no mapping for java.util.Date, but there is a mapping > for java.sql.Date, which is: > > > java.sql.Date > DATE > DATE > I prefer the latter. My reasoning, is that if java.util.Date is mapped to TIMESTAMP, then how does someone make a DATE in the database? They could use java.sql.Timestamp to accomplish that. This is what I have done for my debian packages. ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] java.util.Date in PostgreSQL DB
This is for anyone who knows Postgres out there, There is a patch at sf that suggest adding the following mapping: java.util.Date TIMESTAMP TIMESTAMP There is currently no mapping for java.util.Date, but there is a mapping for java.sql.Date, which is: java.sql.Date DATE DATE Which is best for the default? -dain ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
