Christoph Della Valle wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think it is not a very good idea to fill unknown parts of a date with
> '1's, unless you introduce a new attribute "precision" or so, where you
> store which part (y for year only, m for year/month etc) of your date
> really can be taken seriously...
>
> Or you store year/month/day separately. When you want to use a date
> function, you concatenate all parts and cast it as a date. This is clean
> but more complicated. It depends, how often you need date-functions.
> Attention: concatenation with NULL results in NULL, so you need to use
> coalesce.
Thanks, Chris. This is what I suspected.
Sean
