> On Oct 19, 2025, at 1:08 PM, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
>> That depends on what you do with the table.
>
> Laurenz,
>
> That makes sense.
>
>> Are your SQL statements simple and natural with the current design?
>> Then stick with what you have now.
>
> That's what I'm going to do. I was curious when a timestamp column was more
> efficient, or otherwise preferred, since only a couple of my databases have
> a table with both date and time. And neither has many rows, but one could be
> quite large some time in the future.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Rich
>
I think you have to ask why those values were separated in the first place. For instance if they are thought of as a
pairin most queries then an alteration might be in order. There can be a large one time cost if these tables occur in a
lotof separate sql calls in the business logic.
>
