I need two comparisons in my Sql server, One between Dates and One between Times. I'm using C# and Sql Server and Linq-to-sql. I want to store two time fields (Enter-Time, Exit-Time). Now I want to get the difference (e.g. 12:30 , 18:15 the difference is 5:45). What Data Type should I use? I have the same issue with Dates, I want to get the difference of two Dates but "DateTime" Data Type stores redundant data about time, I just need date. I want the easiest way with the least code possible. I'm currently saving like this "1045" when I fetch it I add a ":" to the middle and it becomes "10:45" and there are lot's of problems this way.
If you need to store dates, you can use the date datatype. Similarly for times, you can use the time datatype.
To compute the difference, you can use the DATEDIFF() sql function that returns the difference between two dates: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189794.aspx
I would advise against storing your data as a string, int etc. Use the datatypes as they are intended.
For storing the data, you can use a Date type, or Time type. Once you do this the TimeSpan structure can be used (in your application) to measure differences in time/dates. If you subtract one date from another then you will receive a TimeSpan object back.
var difference = Date1.Subtract(Date2);
Related
I was wondering if there was a way to store a date (example: 01/01/2013) as datetime without SQL Server CE adding the time (example: 12:00:00 AM).
I could always store it as the string "01/01/2013" but I really want to be able to compare the dates on querying the database.
I realize that as long as I only stored the date part, all of the times in the datetime field would have equal values (i.e. 12:00:00 AM), so comparing them wouldn't be a problem and I could just always ignore the time part, however, it seems ridiculous to have this unnecessary data appended to every entry in the table.
Is there a way to store only the date part of the datetime as datetime so that the dates can still be compared in the SQL query or do I just need to live with this overhead and move on?
Side Note:
I just spent the last 30 minutes searching Google and SO for an answer I was sure was already out there, but to my surprise, I couldn't find anything on this issue.
Update:
The conclusion I have come to is that I will just accept the time in the datetime format and let it always default to 12:00:00 AM by only adding the date part during the INSERT statement (e.g. 01/01/2013). As long as the time part always remains the same throughout, the dates will still be easily comparable and I can just trim it up when I convert it to string for screen display. I believe this will be the easiest way to handle this scenario. After all, I decided to use SQL for the power of its queries, otherwise, I might have just used XML instead of a database, in the first place.
No you really can't get rid of the time component. It is part of the data type defined by sql server. I was very annoyed by it until I found that I could still display the dates without the time using JQuery to reformat them with the date formatter plugi:
https://github.com/phstc/jquery-dateFormat
Good Luck!
select CONVERT(date, GETDATE())
Does SQLs built-in DateTime type has any merits over nvarchar type?
If it were you , which one would you use?
I need to store dates in my SQLServer database and I'm curious to know which one is better and why it is better.
I also want to know what happens if I for example store dates as string literals (I mean nvarchar )? Does it take longer to be searched? Or they are the same in terms of performance ?
And for the last question. How can I send a date from my c# application to the sql field of tye DateTime? Is it any different from the c#s DateTime ?
You're given a date datetype for a reason, why would you not use it?
What happens when you store "3/2/2012" in a text field? Is it March 2nd? Is it February 3rd?
Store the date in a date or datetime field, and do any formatting of the date after the fact.
EDIT
If you have to store dates like 1391/7/1, your choices are:
Assuming you're using SQL Server 2008 or greater, use the datetime2 data type; it allows dates earlier than 1753/01/01 (which is what datetime stops at).
Assuming you're using SQL Server 2005 or earlier, store the dates as Roman calendar dates, and then in your application, use date/time functions to convert the date and time to the Farsi calendar.
Use the correct datatype (date/datetime/datetime2 dependant on version and requirement for time component).
Advantages are more compact storage than storing as a string (especially nvarchar as this is double byte). Built in validation against invalid dates such as 30 February. Sorts correctly. Avoids the need to cast it back to the correct datatype anyway when using date functions on it.
If I'm storing a DateTime value, and I expect to perform date-based calculcations based on it, I'll use a DateTime.
Storing Dates as strings (varchars) introduces a variety of logistical issues, not the least of which is rendering the date in a proper format. Again, that bows in favor of DateTime.
I would go with the DateTime since you can use various functions on it directly.
string wouldn't be too much of a hassle but you will have to cast the data each time you want to do something with it.
There is no real performance variance while searching on both type of fields so going with DateTime is better than strings when working with date values.
you must realise the datetime datatype like other datatypes is provided for a reason and you should use the datatype that represents your data clearly.. Besides this you gain all the functionalities/operations that are special to the datetime datatype..
One of the biggest gains is correct sorting of data which will not be possible directly if you use nvarchar as your datatype.. Even if you think you dont need sorting right now there will be a time in the future where this will be useful.
Also date validation is something that you will benefit from. There is no confusion of the dateformat stored i.e dd/mm or mm/dd etc..
There is lot discussed about the subject. There is good post on the SQLCentral forum about this particular subject DateTime or nvarchar.
In short, nvarchar is twice as longer as datetime, so it takes more space and on the long range, any action affecting it will be slower. You will have some validation issues and many more.
Is it best practice to split a dateTime in two datetime SQL columns?
For example, 2010-12-17 01:55:00.000 is put in two colums,
one column containing a datetime for
the date portion: 2010-12-17 00:00:00.000
one column containing a datetime
for the time portion: 1900-01-01 01:55:00.000
I'm being told this is best practice because at some point SQL 2000 didn't allow to put time in a date? and that there are even data storage standards that enforce this and that some companies have ensure that all their data is stored in that manner to comply to some data storage standards?
If this is the case, I'm sure someone heard about it here, any of this sounds familiar?
In sql server 2008 you have date and time data types so this becomes a non issue. datetime always allowed for time even back in sql server 6 and 7
the reason people split it up is because with everything in 1 column a query that returns all orders placed between 3 and 4 PM for any day requires a scan, with a time column this can be accomplished with a seek (much, much faster)
Starting in SQL 2005 I would do only one column.
If you wanted this information to be Sargable I would use computed columns instead. This way you can query on date or time or both and your application code is only responsible for maintaining the one column.
I know this is old, but another reason you might want to keep separate is for user input (and GenEric said in a comment that this is for time management). If you allow users to enter date/time as separate fields, and you want to be able to save the data with either field being empty, it is nice to have 2 separate null-able fields in your database. Otherwise I guess you either have to resort to kludges where certain date values equal "empty" or add extra bit fields as "no time / no date" flags.
How would you store a time or time range in SQL?
It won't be a datetime because it will just be let's say 4:30PM (not, January 3rd, 4:30pm).
Those would be weekly, or daily meetings.
The type of queries that I need are of course be for display, but also later will include complex queries such as avoiding conflicts in schedule.
I'd rather pick the best datatype for that now.
I'm using MS SQL Server Express 2005.
Thanks!
Nathan
Personally I would find this a reason to upgrade to 2008 which has a separate time datatype.
I would recommend still using a DateTime data type and ignoring the date values--ideally using the static MinDate for SQL (Google it). This will give you the benefits of working with a strongly typed field and the only cost will be a few extra bytes.
As for ranges, store them in two separate columns. Then you can subtract one from the other to determine the difference.
Edit: did some Googling.
SQL Server 2008 adds a Time data type, so you might want to consider that.
You can use SQL 2005's DateTime type and combine it with the CONVERT function to extract just the HH:MM:SS.MMM
SELECT CONVERT(VARCHAR(12), GETDATE(), 114) AS [HH:MI:SS(24H)] (Found on this handy-dandy page)
Different SQL versions support different minimum dates. You could use a static date that will be supported by all such as 1/1/2000, or you could use SQL 2005's minimum value of 1/1/1753 and append the time values to that startic day
So if you stick with 2005, pick your static date, like 1/1/2000, and store your times on it. So 1m:30s would be 2000-1-1 00:01:30.000, and 1h:15m would be 2000-1-1 01:15:00.000
You can then do Date2 - Date1 and get your result of (1h:15:m - 1m:30s) 2000-01-01 01:13:45.000. CONVERT it and you'll have 1:13:45.
You could store it as an int as 24 hour time and format as needed.
Or store it as a datetime with some fixed date and remove it as needed for display:
Jan 1 2000 4:30PM
I would go with datetime field as it gives you the power of all the datetime related functionality.
You might want to consider storing it as an int column representing the number of minutes since midnight. In your entity you could expose this as a TimeSpan (or int) representing the same thing. You'd only need to convert between your display values (time format) and the database value (minutes) in order to perform your queries and this could easily be done in your entity (TimeSpan.TotalMinutes, for example).
to me it sounds like you're developing a type of meeting scheduler or something to display the meetings.
i think that i would set it p with 2 columns MeetingStart and MeetingEnd, both as datetime fields. This way, you can determine the length of the meeting, and since you already have the date you can easily use it to display it on a calendar or something.
I'm supporting an existing application written by another developer and I have a question as to whether the choices the data type the developer chose to store dates is affecting the performance of certain queries.
Relevant information: The application makes heavy use of a "Business Date" field in one of our tables. The data type for this business date is nvarchar(10) rather than a datetime data type. The format of the dates is "MM/DD/YYYY", so Christmas 2007 is stored as "12/25/2007".
Long story short, we have some heavy duty queries that run once a week and are taking a very long time to execute.
I'm re-writing this application from the ground up, but since I'm looking at this, I want to know if there is a performance difference between using the datetime data type compared to storing dates as they are in the current database.
You will both save disk-space and increase performance if you use datetime instead of nvarchar(10).
If you use the date-fields to do date-calculation (DATEADD etc) you will see a massive increase in query-execution-speed, because the fields do not need to be converted to datetime at runtime.
Operations over DATETIMEs are faster than over VARCHARs converted to DATETIMEs.
If your dates appear anywhere but in SELECT clause (like, you add them, DATEDIFF them, search for them in WHERE clause etc), then you should keep them in internal format.
There are a lot of reasons you should actually use DateTime rather than a varchar to store a date. Performance is one... but i would be concerned about queries like this:
SELECT *
FROM Table
WHERE DateField > '12/25/2007'
giving you the wrong results.
I cannot back this up with numbers, but the datetime-type should be a lot faster, since it can easily be compared, unlike the varchar. In my opinion, it is also worth a shot to look into UNIX timestamps as your data type.
I believe from an architectural perspective a Datetime would be a more efficient data type as it would be stored as a two 4-byte integers, whereas your nvarchar(10) will be stored as up to 22 bytes (two times the number of characters entered + 2 bytes.). Therefore potentially more than double the amount of storage space is required now in comparison to using a Datetime.
This of course has possible implications for indexing, as the smaller the data item, the more records you can fit on an index data page. This in turn produces a smaller index which is of course quicker to traverse and therefore will return results faster.
In summary, Datetime is the way to go.
The date filtering in the nvarchar field is not easy possible, as the data in the index is sorted lexicographically which doesn't match the sorting you would expect for the date. It's the problem with the date format "mm/dd/yyyy". That means "12/25/2007" will be after "12/01/2008" in a nvarchar index, but that's not what you want. "yyyy/mm/dd" would have been fine.
So, you should use a date field and convert the string values to date. You will surely get a big performance boost. That's if you can change the table schema.
Yes. datetime will be far more efficient for date calculations than varchar or nvarchar (why nvarchar - there's no way you've got real unicode in there, right?). Plus strings can be invalid and misinterpreted.
If you are only using the date part, your system may have a smaller date-only version of datetime.
In addition, if you are just doing joins and certain types of operations (>/</= comparisions but not datediff), a date "id" column which is actually an int of the form yyyymmdd is commonly used in datawarehouses. This does allow "invalid" dates, unfortunately, but it also allows more obvious reserved, "special", dates, whereas in datetime, you might use NULL of 1/1/1900 or something. Integrity is usually enforced through a foerign key constraint to a date "dimension."
Seeing that you tagged the question as "sql server", I'm assuming you are using some version of SQL Server, so I recommend that you look at either using datetime or smalldatetime. In addition, in SQL Server 2008, you have a date type as well as a datetime2 with a much larger range. Check out this link which gives some details
One other problem with using varchar (or any other string datatype) is that the data likely contains invalid dates as they are not automatically validated on entry. If you try to chang e the filed to a datetime field, you amay have conversion problems wher people have added dates such as ASAP, Unknown, 1/32/2009, etc. You willneed to check for dates that won't convert using the handy isdate function and either fix or null them out before you try to chnge the data type.
Likely you also have a lot of code that converts the varchar type to date datatype on the fly so that you can do date math as well. All that code will also need to be fixed.
Chances are the datetime type is both more compact and faster, but more importantly using DATETIMES to store a date and time is a better architecture choice. You're less likely to run into weird problems looking for records between a certain date range and most database libraries will map them to your languages Date type, so the code is much cleaner, which is really much more important in the long run.
Even if it were slower, you'd spend more time debugging the strings-as-dates than all your users will ever see in savings combined.