--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Ali Gökçen <alig@e...> wrote:

> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "barfingdog_2004"
> <barfingdog_2004@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Again Experts:
> >
> > Upon further investigation, this is an issue of
> > me not dealing with a NULL date. The timestamp
> > field does not seem to be an issue.
> >
> > I still need milliseconds in a timestamp, What
> > do you suggest for that? An additional millisecond
> > field in the table?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Larry
>
> Larry, [ Larry Ellison??? ;) ]
> what will you do with millisecods?
> don't trust millisecods to be sure create unique field value.
> you can get same 'NOW' value with same millisecod even today.
> what will do your system when 20GHZ Zentium 7 extrem CPU give you
> same TIMESTAMP values for a few following new inserts?
> why don't you use
> ordey by mytimestamp,rec_id
> to get records as inserted order?
>
> Ali

Hahaha

Thanks Ali:

No, sorry. I believe Larry E. posts under
"Pukingdog" when he has questions for this group.
So I understand how you would be confused. : )

I'm logging keystrokes. I'd like sub-second
resolution, but this application has no need for
millisecond granularity. Milliseconds are a
common resolution in system's time structures,
even in operating systems and on computers that
can't accurately represent such a small space in
time.

I also save a unique keystroke sequence number
that I use to preserve keystroke order.

The statements in the SQL I posted are to build
a list of collections of these keystrokes. No two
collections of keystrokes would be created in the
same millisecond, and if they were, that's not a
problem, because the timestamp doesn't have to be
unique.

Thanks
Larry