In The Beginning

  • Sean Pearce

    SSCoach

    Points: 15750

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item In The Beginning

    The SQL Guy @ blogspot[/url]

    @SeanPearceSQL

    About Me[/url]

  • Koen Verbeeck

    SSC Guru

    Points: 258965

    Nice and easy, thanks.

    Need an answer? No, you need a question
    My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
    MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

  • Carlo Romagnano

    SSC-Insane

    Points: 21965

    Extremely easy!

    Thanks!

  • ksatpute123

    Hall of Fame

    Points: 3325

    Easy one. Thank you for the question.

  • DrKiller

    Right there with Babe

    Points: 780

    Maybe add to the explanation that SMALLDATETIME is 1900-01-01.

    Maybe some people doesn't know the ranges are different

  • Kev T

    SSC Veteran

    Points: 200

    It'd be good if the explanation included the reason for such a seemingly random year of 1753. 🙂

    For those that may not know, it is because of the move from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 saw 11 days in September never occur. Because of this, SQL would not reliably/accurately calculate dates prior to 1753 (without some extensive development).

    http://www.projectbritain.com/calendar/january/lostdays.html

  • Gavin Regnart

    Old Hand

    Points: 303

    Nice question, thank you.

  • paul.knibbs

    SSCoach

    Points: 15270

    Kev T (11/25/2014)

    For those that may not know, it is because of the move from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 saw 11 days in September never occur.

    Of course, that date only applies to the British Empire--the Gregorian calendar was actually introduced in 1582, but different countries introduced it at different times; Greece didn't adopt it until 1923!

  • ksatpute123

    Hall of Fame

    Points: 3325

    Kev T (11/25/2014)


    It'd be good if the explanation included the reason for such a seemingly random year of 1753. 🙂

    For those that may not know, it is because of the move from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 saw 11 days in September never occur. Because of this, SQL would not reliably/accurately calculate dates prior to 1753 (without some extensive development).

    http://www.projectbritain.com/calendar/january/lostdays.html%5B/quote%5D

    +1 for the information

  • This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • Kev T

    SSC Veteran

    Points: 200

    Thanks Paul, how interesting! I wonder how this is handled in Greece with regards to big data and historical records, or if they forgone the lost days somehow.

  • dlaughlin 24148

    Old Hand

    Points: 355

    I could see why so many people answered 1/1/1900, based on the phrasing of the question. If you assign 0 to a datetime, that's the date you'll get in return.

  • Brian.Klinect

    Mr or Mrs. 500

    Points: 592

    That's exactly what I did. I had no idea I could use a negative number for a datetime!

  • Ed Wagner

    SSC Guru

    Points: 286982

    I think this is a good question about the fundamentals of datetime. It consistently surprises me how people don't get a very simple concept. They honestly believe it's a validated string and stored that way. Anyway, thanks for a nice, simple question. I'm surprised it hasn't sparked too much debate yet. Then again, the thread is still young.

  • Mike Hays

    SSCommitted

    Points: 1871

    I could swore that it was sometime in 1975?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply