News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Timestamp vs. millis, storing time in database.

Re:Ask HN: Timestamp vs. millis, storing time in database by gjvc on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:02AM (#12048567)
We have a very similar problem. We keep timestamps in numeric form as "epoch nanos" (nanoseconds from 1970-01-01 00:00) We are using PostgreSQL as the database, and I would very much like to use the native type (TIMESTAMP) [1], but PostgreSQL only keeps TIMESTAMP columns to microseconds, not nanoseconds. :-(

Using the native DBMS types allows use of native DBMS time and interval functionality, unless you like doing it yourself.

See also [2]

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/datatype-datetime...

[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/409286/should-i-use-field...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Timestamp vs. millis, storing time in database by govindpatel on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:34AM (#12049183)
we have some tables where we have timestamp and other places we have millis. We are also using postgreSQL database.

I have asked this question so that I can know whether any other person faces problem like this, it is kind of annoying when I see different ways of storing the time, but not knowing what is the best practise to save time in database.

[ Parent | on HN ]