On 2012-02-16, David Salisbury <salisbury@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/16/12 7:27 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: >> Musial, Jan (GIUB)<jan.musial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> smallint,month smallint,day smallint,time_stamp date); I would like to >> >> That's silly, use one (and only one) field, timestamp (or timestamptz) >> Don't use never ever multiple columns for the same information! > > Would it not be advantageous to replicate information in the above > form if you wanted to, say, get all records in the month of May, and > therefore create an index on the month field? I would think that > would be more efficient than creating a functional index on a timestamp. > And if you're not too picky, that would give an index that couldn't > be done on a timestamptz field, as that's mutable. using "at timezone ...." can convert timestamptz to timestamp. which can then be fragmented immutably for indexing using extract or to_char. -- ⚂⚃ 100% natural -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
