Topic awaiting preservation: ORDER BY from two different fields? (Page 1 of 1) |
|
---|---|
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 127.0.0.1 |
posted 12-19-2001 16:26
Greets! |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Minneapolis, MN, USA |
posted 12-19-2001 16:48
Not sure off the top of my head, but when would the release_date ever be later than the updated_date? |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Minneapolis, MN, USA |
posted 12-19-2001 17:04
Ah, quite simple really. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 127.0.0.1 |
posted 01-28-2002 17:19
Okay...this works well, but I need to throw something into the mix here. I've been playing with it and can't seem to get it to work right. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: 100101010011 <-- right about here |
posted 01-28-2002 18:13
hmm.. Is there a reason you are seperating out the update_date and update_time? I'm assuming that these fields get updated simultaneously (one with the date and one with the time) so I'm wondering why you are not using a datetime field and just consolidating the two. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 127.0.0.1 |
posted 01-28-2002 20:55
Actually, that's a boo-boo on our part. We originally just wanted the date, so the original database field was just the date. Later, we decided to add the time, and in order to not break the existing content and applications, added another field for the time. |