Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 @ 06:44:59 GMT
| Subj: || || Size of TIME(n) |
| From: || || Anantaraman, Kumaran (K.) |
Why does TIME(n) data type always take 6 bytes? Seems an unnecessary waste of space. TIME(0) could have defined the seconds component
as DEC(2,0), instead of the fixed DEC(8,6), and saved 3 bytes of space. Similar argument extends to TIMESTAMP(n).
Many DBC tables use INTEGER to store time values. Apart from the space diff - INTEGER takes 4 bytes, while TIME(n) takes 6 - is there
any other advantage to using INTEGER for time values?