Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime
От | jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m11H5qY-00080YC@mailbox.reptiles.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime ("Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] getting at the actual int4 value of an abstime
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> test=> select timefield::int8 from timetest; > int8 > --------- > 934931603 > 934931604 > 934931605 > (3 rows) hmmm, as you did, i tried timefield::int4, and got the same results. i hadn't tried timefield::int8. i suspect this would be more efficient than date_part('epoch', timefield). > What version of PostgreSQL, BTW? This is 6.5: int8 and numeric support got a > lot better vs. 6.4 i am using 6.5, soon gonna upgrade to 6.5.1. thanx, this will make my code much more efficient. also, is there a reverse to this? ie. how does one inject unix time_t data into an abstime field. i currently pass my raw data through a filter, which converts it to 'yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:SS'. then i bring it in using: "COPY tb USING STDIN;" it would be nice if i could do a batch of: "INSERT INTO tb (time_t, data1, date2) VALUES (934931604, 'aa', 'bb');" -- [ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ The telephone, for those of you who have forgotten, was a commonly used ] [ communications technology in the days before electronic mail. ] [ They're still easy to find in most large cities. -- Nathaniel Borenstein ]
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: