Re: oracle sequence numbers
From: Tibor Karaszi <tibor_not_pressed_ham_.karaszi_at_cornerstone.se>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:15:08 GMT
Message-ID: <wrcW9.6554$FF4.400903_at_newsb.telia.net>
> I can't see why anyone would want to use the TIMESTAMP value as
> defined by SQL-92/-99 for a sequence number when the resolution is no
> better than a second.
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:15:08 GMT
Message-ID: <wrcW9.6554$FF4.400903_at_newsb.telia.net>
>
> I can't see why anyone would want to use the TIMESTAMP value as
> defined by SQL-92/-99 for a sequence number when the resolution is no
> better than a second.
It can be, but that info is a bit "hidden" in the ANSI text. Below quote is from SQL:1999, foundation.
"SECOND, however, can be
defined to have a <time fractional seconds precision> that indicates the
number of decimal digits
maintained following the decimal point in the seconds value, a non-negative
exact numeric value."
If course, since fractions isn't mandatory and precision is implementation defines, one should be very careful...
-- Tibor KarasziReceived on Sat Jan 18 2003 - 14:15:08 CET