if you don't need the sub-seconds precision, you should stick to using DATE -- it saves you quite some storage (7 bytes as opposed to 11 bytes) and if you store timezone info it even goes up to 13 bytes ... kind regards, Lex. -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mark Moynahan Sent: donderdag 18 maart 2004 21:37 To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Timestamp - to be or not to be? Hi, Are there any technical reasons not to go forth with timestamp instead of date datatype? Are there any gotcha's by converting to timestamp? If an application doesn't use fractions of a second is there any real need to use timestamp datatype? Thanks, Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------