Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««1234»»

DATETIME - 3 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 7:37 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:41 AM
Points: 2,109, Visits: 2,121
Thanks for a great question Ron.

I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process. Based on the current responses I think it could be very effective in separating those who know the subject from those who don't and also quite effective in separating those who are better at deduction and problem solving from those who are not so strong in that area.

QotD's like this may be a great resource for putting together a quick and effective screening process!
Post #1429262
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 7:46 AM


Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:19 AM
Points: 701, Visits: 1,145
Dave62 (3/11/2013)
Thanks for a great question Ron.

I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process. Based on the current responses I think it could be very effective in separating those who know the subject from those who don't and also quite effective in separating those who are better at deduction and problem solving from those who are not so strong in that area.

QotD's like this may be a great resource for putting together a quick and effective screening process!


I would hope most places and SQL server users don't use two-digit years. I know I had to look up this rule (didn't know it) because we only use 4 digit year everywhere. Seems like that should be a no brainer since the Y2K fiasco.
Post #1429273
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 7:57 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:29 AM
Points: 3,354, Visits: 2,001
I thought everyone I work with only used 4 digit years until last week. I saw some code where they were using test values for date parameters with 2 digit years. It was a fairly new report query too so I can't chalk it up to someone being young and not knowing better. Luckily we don't deal with future dates beyond about a year from the current date. Still good to know the cutoff so that if an issue does arise, I'll know where to look first.
Post #1429277
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 7:57 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:52 PM
Points: 6,048, Visits: 8,328
Dave62 (3/11/2013)
I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process.

I don't agree. I happened to know this one because I was already using SQL Server at the end of the previous century (wow, putting it like that really makes me feel old!) But how many people who started using SQL Server more recently would know this? I would be perfectly fine with employees who frankly admit that they'd have to look up (or experiment) to predict what SQL does with a two-digit year. And if I found someone who did know this, I'd still want to know if (s)he has been keeping up to date, or is still on knowledge of SQL 7.0 and SQL 2000 only.

QotD's like this may be a great resource for putting together a quick and effective screening process!

Some QotD's could be used in an interview, but the large majority are more trivia-type questions and less about knowledge required for real-world SQL Server jobs.



Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
Visit my SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis
Post #1429278
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 8:03 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM
Points: 3,688, Visits: 72,435
Thanks for the question... brought back memories of the Y2K "feature"



--Mark Tassin
MCITP - SQL Server DBA
Proud member of the Anti-RBAR alliance.
For help with Performance click this link
For tips on how to post your problems
Post #1429279
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 8:14 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:41 AM
Points: 2,109, Visits: 2,121
Hugo Kornelis (3/11/2013)
Dave62 (3/11/2013)
I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process.

I don't agree. I happened to know this one because I was already using SQL Server at the end of the previous century (wow, putting it like that really makes me feel old!) But how many people who started using SQL Server more recently would know this? I would be perfectly fine with employees who frankly admit that they'd have to look up (or experiment) to predict what SQL does with a two-digit year. And if I found someone who did know this, I'd still want to know if (s)he has been keeping up to date, or is still on knowledge of SQL 7.0 and SQL 2000 only.

QotD's like this may be a great resource for putting together a quick and effective screening process!

Some QotD's could be used in an interview, but the large majority are more trivia-type questions and less about knowledge required for real-world SQL Server jobs.


Great point Hugo.

There still may be some value in using QotD's like this one as interview questions because of the revelations about deductive reasoning and problem solving.

I'm referring to the fact that there was only 1 option for Value 4 and still some failed to choose it.
Post #1429289
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 8:16 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:54 AM
Points: 1,365, Visits: 2,370
Hugo Kornelis (3/11/2013)
Dave62 (3/11/2013)
I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process.

I don't agree. I happened to know this one because I was already using SQL Server at the end of the previous century (wow, putting it like that really makes me feel old!) But how many people who started using SQL Server more recently would know this? I would be perfectly fine with employees who frankly admit that they'd have to look up (or experiment) to predict what SQL does with a two-digit year. And if I found someone who did know this, I'd still want to know if (s)he has been keeping up to date, or is still on knowledge of SQL 7.0 and SQL 2000 only.


I probably wouldn't use this exact question as I see no point in memorizing details you can look up, but I could see an interview question that tests to see if the candidate is at least aware of such issues when working with a two digit year.
Post #1429291
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 8:25 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:20 AM
Points: 1,387, Visits: 1,315
Hugo Kornelis (3/11/2013)
Dave62 (3/11/2013)
I'm thinking about including a question like this in an interviewing process.

I don't agree. I happened to know this one because I was already using SQL Server at the end of the previous century (wow, putting it like that really makes me feel old!) But how many people who started using SQL Server more recently would know this? I would be perfectly fine with employees who frankly admit that they'd have to look up (or experiment) to predict what SQL does with a two-digit year. And if I found someone who did know this, I'd still want to know if (s)he has been keeping up to date, or is still on knowledge of SQL 7.0 and SQL 2000 only.


Maybe if response "I'm not sure how MSSQL treats two-digit years but I can look BOL" is OK.
You are right, this behaviour is from a museum.




See, understand, learn, try, use efficient
© Dr.Plch
Post #1429299
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 8:57 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:40 PM
Points: 1,061, Visits: 2,578
demonfox (3/11/2013)
kapil_kk (3/11/2013)
Hi,

can someone plz explain it in a more simple manner..... explanation in QOTD is very inscrutable for me


Inscrutable , is that the right word

well, as explained in the explanation ..

1.
The two digit year cutoff option specifies an integer from 1753 to 9999 that represents the cutoff year for interpreting two-digit years as four-digit years.


So, for sql server to interpret Two digit year as Four digit year
2.
The default time span for SQL Server is 1950-2049,



It means , if you anything in between the above range .. it will interpret as current century ..

50 is 1950
51 is 1951
49 is 2049
48 is 2048

is that clear enough ???


I think Microsoft made its explanation of how the cutoff year functions more confusing by using the word "century". In my mind, and I suspect many others think the same way since this seems to be the most common usage, the word "century" denotes a 100-year period beginning on a year evenly divisible by 100, e.g. 1900 - 1999, 2000 - 2099. Thus, I might have decided that a two-digit year value of 65, being in the same "century" as the default cutoff year of 2049 (i.e., 2000-2099) would mean 2065.

Microsoft could have made the explanation clearer by specifying that "a two-digit year value is interpreted as being within the 100-year period ending with the cutoff year." That would make it crystal clear to me that a cutoff year of 2049 means that two-digit year values will be deemed to represent years 1950 - 2049 while a cutoff year of 2074 would mean that two-digit year values will be deemed to represent years 1975 - 2074, etc.


Jason Wolfkill
Blog: SQLSouth
Twitter: @SQLSouth
Post #1429319
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 10:27 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:20 AM
Points: 1,387, Visits: 1,315
wolfkillj (3/11/2013)

I think Microsoft made its explanation of how the cutoff year functions more confusing by using the word "century". In my mind, and I suspect many others think the same way since this seems to be the most common usage, the word "century" denotes a 100-year period beginning on a year evenly divisible by 100, e.g. 1900 - 1999, 2000 - 2099. Thus, I might have decided that a two-digit year value of 65, being in the same "century" as the default cutoff year of 2049 (i.e., 2000-2099) would mean 2065.

Microsoft could have made the explanation clearer by specifying that "a two-digit year value is interpreted as being within the 100-year period ending with the cutoff year." That would make it crystal clear to me that a cutoff year of 2049 means that two-digit year values will be deemed to represent years 1950 - 2049 while a cutoff year of 2074 would mean that two-digit year values will be deemed to represent years 1975 - 2074, etc.

Are you sure a century is 1900-1999? I think a century is 1901-2000.




See, understand, learn, try, use efficient
© Dr.Plch
Post #1429385
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««1234»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse