× 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.



Luis,

Earlier I had suggested
ODLCEN concat substr(odldat,5,2) concat substr(odldat,1,4)
for changed date. That would give you 0971225 or 1130322 as two examples.
That alone would be sufficient for the comparison.

I love date fields. I would never use a character or numeric column in a
new table to store a date. But why go through the extra processing to
convert a crappy character date format into a true date once you have it
in a format suitable to get the job done?

Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say they stored this date as
character CYYMMDD so it's already either 0971225 or 1130322 as our
previous examples. If you have an index on this table over this "date"
and you try to process it sorted by that date you just blew using the
index out of the water if you do any calculations on that in the
comparison (like convert it to a true date field).

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.