All correct, yes.
Of course now I think about it, strftime always being a string means that you
either should avoid the '%s' conversion or cast it to a number on both sides,
so you don't get the '100' < '20' situation.
Advertising
Better yet, either one of the datetime() or julianday() functions (with the
same one used consistently in all places) will work best for comparison since
the output for either one sorts correctly against itself. strftime() should be
saved for display formatting.
sqlite> select strftime('%s', '1970-01-01 00:01:40') < strftime('%s',
'1970-01-01 00:00:20');
1
sqlite> select datetime('1970-01-01 00:01:40') < datetime('1970-01-01
00:00:20');
0
sqlite> select julianday('1970-01-01 00:01:40') < julianday('1970-01-01
00:00:20');
0
sqlite> select datetime('now', '+300 seconds') < datetime('now');
0
sqlite> select datetime('now', '-300 seconds') < datetime('now');
1
-----Original Message-----
From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On
Behalf Of Don V Nielsen
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:15 PM
To: SQLite mailing list
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Possible bug with strftime('%s') < strftime('%s')
So strftime always returns TEXT. Correct? It was the application of +300 to
that result that changed the type to INTEGER. And had "+300 seconds" been
applied as a modifier in the strftime function, then the addition would
have occurred before producing the result, with the result being type TEXT.
Correct?
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
