Re: Problem with result set from a simple SQL Select
From: IANAL_VISTA <IANAL_Vista_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:52:07 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns95EEA16D7A80SunnySD_at_68.6.19.6>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Newer versions of Oracle appear to have a date format mask for
> fractions of a second (.F?), from which I assume that the time
> resolution can be smaller than one second in those versions.
>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:52:07 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns95EEA16D7A80SunnySD_at_68.6.19.6>
[Quoted] yf110_at_vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones) wrote in news:41fd580b_at_news.victoria.tc.ca:
> IANAL_VISTA (IANAL_Vista_at_hotmail.com) wrote:
>: "lennyw" <lwintfeld_at_libertycorner.net> wrote in >: news:1107044827.490858.34650_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>: > Thanks for your reply. I'll add the TO_DATE to the query when I get >: > back to work on Monday. You're right that a DATE type is not a >: > string; it's an integral multiple of milliseconds since <some >: > epoch>.
>
>
>: SELECT TO_CHAR >: (SYSDATE, 'MM-DD-YYYY HH24:MI:SS') "NOW" >: FROM DUAL;
>
>: A DATE datatype only provides granularity down to 1 second intervals.
>
>: Oracle can store dates in the Julian era, ranging from January 1, >: 4712 BCE through December 31, 4712 CE (Common Era, or 'AD'). Unless >: BCE ('BC' in the format mask) is specifically used, CE date entries >: are the default.
>
>
> Newer versions of Oracle appear to have a date format mask for
> fractions of a second (.F?), from which I assume that the time
> resolution can be smaller than one second in those versions.
>
[Quoted] The newer versions have an additional datatype of TIMESTAMP; which does support franctions of seconds. However, if OP is using the DATE datatype, the limit is still 1 second intervals Received on Mon Jan 31 2005 - 00:52:07 CET