Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5

    Angry Unanswered: Minimum Date in DateStamp field is not 1-Jan-100 (Silly by SQLServer guys)

    Minimum Date in DateStamp field is not 1-Jan-100. Wouldn't we expect that.

    In SQLServer2000 is it "1-Jan-100", if not WHY ??,

    In the previous versions it is "01-Jan-1753"

    bikramjeet

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    The problem lies with the Gregorian calendar, not the SQL software.

    If you go back before 1753, you start to run into all kinds of problems with dates. Finding out which day corresponds to a particular date means that the algorithm needs to know where you want the date resolved from a political standpoint as well as a chronological standpoint. There are also a number of other problems that crop up, such as certain calender days occuring more than once. It gets ugly.

    See Wolfram for more explaination.

    -PatP

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Phelan
    The problem lies with the Gregorian calendar, not the SQL software.

    If you go back before 1753, you start to run into all kinds of problems with dates. Finding out which day corresponds to a particular date means that the algorithm needs to know where you want the date resolved from a political standpoint as well as a chronological standpoint. There are also a number of other problems that crop up, such as certain calender days occuring more than once. It gets ugly.

    See Wolfram for more explaination.

    -PatP

    I always found that to be a lame excuse....

    As if there aren't enough...what the technical word they use...oh well, kludges in M$ internal code anyway....

    If they really wanted to..(and who the hell said ancient dates are precise anyway)...bulid it in tho the damn date functions...why limit it?

    Next they'll be telling us you can't travel fatser than the speed of light....


    The Church of M$
    Brett
    8-)

    It's a Great Day for America everybody!

    dbforums Yak CorralRadio 'Rita
    dbForums Member List
    I'm Good Once as I ever was

    The physical order of data in a database has no meaning.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett Kaiser
    I always found that to be a lame excuse....
    Yeah, but Convert() would be kind of funky if it had arguments for your location, political affiliation, and religion!

    Oracle solves this problem by simply ignoring the Gregorian reformation altogether... You simply learn to live on Oracle time!

    There are other client programming languages that have library code that detects the PC's locale and uses that to make the decisions (which are frequently incorrect) about date conversions. This can be a real hoot to debug, since the exact same binary running on the exact same release of windoze would change its results based on where it thought the PC was!

    That leads to the issue of lunar calendars that have leap months added on a tough to predict basis... That's even more fun!

    I don't remember if you were involved in the discussion of database normalization that Rudy invited me to that was the first time I'd posted here... The issue of dates is a lot like the issue of normalization: if you know nothing about it, no problem; if you know a little bit about it, not a big problem; as you learn more than just a little, the problem gets bigger and uglier really fast. The whole thing becomes a slippery slope, so it gets tough to dance!

    -PatP

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •