|
Dan: Dan Swartz wrote: > We're embarking on some database design issues and I wanted to know how > others felt about the use of date type fields versus just numeric type > fields (format would be CCYYMMDD). I prefer CCYYMMDD. However this will take 5 bytes packed while the date data type takes only 4 bytes and gives you automatic editing. > What overhead (if any) would there be to convert numeric fields to date > type fields to do certain date interval calculations? There is a slow down when you use date data type. However, as somebody pointed out yesterday, IBM has issued a ptf to speed up the date processing. The problem is default date cannot be all zeros. -- Thank You. Regards Dave Mahadevan.. mailto:mahadevan@fuse.net +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com". | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.