| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Timestamps in ORDER BY Clause? |
|---|---|
| Author | Helen Borrie |
| Post date | 2004-05-29T00:47:46Z |
At 09:30 PM 28/05/2004 +0000, you wrote:
timestamp literal looks like this:
'29.05.2004 10:42:15.5432'
The problem you'll have is that the system date doesn't deliver subseconds
to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP or 'NOW'. This (as I understand it) comes from a Unix
limitation.
If you don't care about what the actual subsecond time was, but only the
order of things, you could store the system time in one field and pick a
value off a generator for an associated unique ordering.
/heLen
> > >The timestamp format already supports ten-thousandths of seconds. A full
> > > I still need milliseconds in a timestamp, What
> > > do you suggest for that? An additional millisecond
> > > field in the table?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Larry
> >
timestamp literal looks like this:
'29.05.2004 10:42:15.5432'
The problem you'll have is that the system date doesn't deliver subseconds
to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP or 'NOW'. This (as I understand it) comes from a Unix
limitation.
If you don't care about what the actual subsecond time was, but only the
order of things, you could store the system time in one field and pick a
value off a generator for an associated unique ordering.
/heLen