Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> "Paul G. Brown" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:57da7b56.0306031727.209ae842_at_posting.google.com...
>
>> Well, now we're into a philosphical discussion entirely off-topic to
>> c.d.t. (But I share your sense of taste in this instance . . . .)
>
>
> OK, closer to the topic.
>
> Proposition. The only date type allowed stored in the RDBMS should be
> INSTANCE/TIMESTAMP
>
> Other datatypes are functions:
>
> DATE = FLOOR(TIMESTAMP / Day)
> TIME = TIMESTAMP (mod) Day
>
> Storing timestamp in inferior units is possible, but just a handicap to the
> system evolution and progress. Besides, what is the TIME: instant, interval,
> or just a number in a fancy base system?
I disagree. You need to be able to store intervals (or durations),
and those are distinctly different from points on the timeline (which
is what a timestamp represents). Now, if you said the only type to be
used was an interval, with timestamps simply being an interval from a
fixed point on the timeline, then you might be in with a chance - but
not a very good one - of justifying your proposition.
--
Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/
Received on Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:29:13 CDT
