Re: time/date as key fields -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Yep, even timestamps on modern fast boxes will not guarantee uniqueness, even down to the microsecond. There is an MI timestamp, TOD, that is 8 bytes long and guaranteed to be unique - pretty easily retrieved (MATTOD) and converted to a 16-character value (CVTHC, or CVTCH - i forget!) that sorts by date/time. Or you can leave it as its 8-byte value, that'll still sort just fine.

Vern

On 11/19/2010 4:47 AM, dieter.bender@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

...uniqueness is not guaranteed and the sequence might not be strict. A
transaction number could be addedd automatically and using a view it could
be unvisable to the application.

Dieter

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David FOXWELL"<David.FOXWELL@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:21 AM
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion"<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: time/date as key fields

Is there anything wrong in using date and time of creation fields already
existing in a transaction table to keep track of transaction history or
would it be advisable to add a separate field transaction_number? The
latter means a lot more program changes.

Thanks

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.