Re: TIMESTAMP(0) in DDS -- 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.

No, not to save bytes, Rob. Just because most of our files use DDS, and I was very close to having it work so that I could copy from an SQL created table to the DDS generated one using CPYF. So now I've got two ways to go: create DDS with full timestamp and use SELECT INTO or go DDL. Either way is fine.

On 4/28/2021 1:05 PM, Rob Berendt wrote:

If you are doing this solely to save bytes then do NOT do what Birgitta said as you will be wasting additional space.
Again, even though DSPPFM shows a timestamp(0) column taking several bytes and looking like '2021-04-28-13.59.00' it really only takes 7 bytes internally. So, storing it as a character would use 18 bytes. Even if you drop all the separators you'd still be consuming 14 bytes versus the 7 bytes of an internal representation of a timestamp(0) column.

I'd like to know by what mathematical gymnastics they get a timestamp(0) column to take 7 bytes as I suspect that some of you will not believe IBM's documentation until you understand that.

Rob Berendt

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.