InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 22 May 2013 00:20:28 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1078032-392-1.aspxAlso the datetime2 and datetimeoffset data types as well in SQL Server 2008.Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:56:56 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1078032-392-1.aspxUse the TIME datatype instead of DATETIME for higher resolution on timings. It's accurate to 100 nanoseconds.Edit: Left the window open in the background too long I see, I've just added some clarity to what Jeff already mentioned. :-)Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:43:15 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1078032-392-1.aspxIIRC, the resolution of some of the new datetime function in 2k8 has a [i]much [/i]better resolution.Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:30:55 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1078032-392-1.aspxNevermind.. I didn't realize that SQL Server only maintained a 3.33 precision on milliseconds..case closed.. thanksDonalithMon, 14 Mar 2011 16:02:10 GMTErin Ramsayhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1078032-392-1.aspxWhy does this:DATEPART(MILLISECOND,cast('2011-03-14 17:43:52.134' as datetime))return 133?and DATEPART(MILLISECOND,cast('2011-03-14 17:43:52.135' as datetime))return 137?Is there an inconsistency in anything smaller than a second in SQL Server 2008?DonalithMon, 14 Mar 2011 15:51:21 GMTErin Ramsay