Re: db-lib: support for new MS SQL 2008 data types - part 3

2014-05-19 12:10 GMT+01:00 LacaK <[email protected]>:
> Frediano Ziglio  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>> 2014-04-22 7:10 GMT+01:00 LacaK <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>
>>> Frediano Ziglio  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-04-17 6:26 GMT+01:00 LacaK <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Frediano Ziglio  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-04-16 12:44 GMT+01:00 LacaK <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>> Now I am personally happy with patched db-lib in regards of support
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> DATE
>>>>>>> - TIME data types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great! Yesterday I discovered a problem with BCP adding some tests for
>>>>>> these new types, still to fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May be, I have never used bcp_* functions ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll fix it. It's a quite different code path compared to the one you
>>>> are working on. But is still related to same data types.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there are still missing some parts, which may be interesting to
>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>> I meant dbbind() family of API with corresponding *BIND constants and
>>>>>>> binary
>>>>>>> structure used to store this types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to handle binding of new date, time types ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - introduce new DBDATETIMEALLBIND (or DBDATETIME2BIND) constant in
>>>>>>> sybdb.h ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - introduce new DBDATETIMEALL struct (==TDS_DATETIMEALL struct) in
>>>>>>> sybdb.h
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmm... well... could be or not. Microsoft for ODBC defined quite
>>>>>> different structures (one more similar to DBDATEREC). TDS_DATETIMEALL
>>>>>> is neither from TDS protocol neither intended to be presented to
>>>>>> clients. It's a mix of TDS protocols, numeric, old dates (values are
>>>>>> the same as dtdays).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On the other end I could understand that
>>>>>> providing dbdata different from libTDS is far from easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactlly!
>>>>> It is main reason why I am still speaking about TDS_DATETIMEALL ;-)
>>>>> And as I already wrote because of similarity of:
>>>>> SQL Server       libTDS                          DB-Lib
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> datetime        -> TDS_DATETIME   == DBDATETIME
>>>>> smalldatetime ->TDS_DATETIME4 == DBDATETIME4
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be happy also with SQL_TIMESTAMP_STRUCT (or other struct), to be
>>>>> public structure for these new date time data types, but IMO then this
>>>>> struct must be used also internaly by libTDS to store values in record
>>>>> buffer. Because if libTDS will continue use TDS_DATETIMEALL then it
>>>>> will
>>>>> significantly complicate things on db-lib level. (as there will be
>>>>> required
>>>>> conversion in many places)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well.. TDS_DATETIME4 and TDS_DATETIME have same representation of wire
>>>> bytes (unless bit endian is different) and are documented in dblib.
>>>> TDS_DATETIMEALL is neither wire neither documented (so no ABI).
>>>> Unfortunately dbdata wants a binary representation of each data.
>>>> ctlib... I don't remember. ODBC either wants a bind or data get read
>>>> into user provided buffers (SQLGetData). Actually ODBC have separate
>>>> types for each MS type. The reason I added this libTDS type is that is
>>>> easier during the conversion to have a single type to work with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with this "single type"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another reason is while wire for all date types are quite easy to put
>>>> directly into a structure these new types are quite different. The
>>>> size of date is 3 bytes so computers cannot handle directly (you need
>>>> to stick the 3 bytes into a single 32 bit integer) while seconds and
>>>> fraction size are from 3 to 5 bytes (same problem). This is the reason
>>>> for the two time and date fields. Obviously to store 5 bytes we need
>>>> at least a 8 byte integer. Somebody could say that an 8 bytes integer
>>>> is enough (3+5 = 8) and it's true but all datetime structure keeps
>>>> date and time separate and mostly of the time this would lead to just
>>>> some extra multiplication/division. Another thing about date. The zero
>>>> from the wire represent a date like 1-1-0... now, gregorian calendar
>>>> (the one we use) was introduced in 1592 so before they have different
>>>> calendar (month days and months order changed). So this zero is quite
>>>> artificial. This is why I preferred to set zero for this structure to
>>>> 1-1-1900. About seconds wire send the number with precision so
>>>> 00:00:01 is 1 for TIME(0) and is 100 for TIME(2). Actually the
>>>> structure always set this number as precision was 7. About bit fields.
>>>> These mainly are reduntant as they came directly from the type. They
>>>> are not on the data wire (precision is a field in the metadata), this
>>>> is similar to scale/precision for numeric data (which are in metadata
>>>> while we copy in libTDS data).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no objections, as I wrote I am also now perfectly happy with
>>> TDS_DATETIMEALL
>>> All reasons you mentioned are from me POV valid and logical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well... all these looks quite paranoid but external ABI needs to stay
>>>> so is better to decide what to stick into the dbdata structure!
>>>> date: perhaps would be better to just store the number from wire
>>>> (converted to 32 bit) without bias;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> may be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> time: perhaps would be better to just store the number from wire
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> for me is better solution have time "normalized" to fixed precision -
>>> TIME(7)
>>> in other cases I will must evaluate on each access "time_prec" to obtain
>>> information if f.e. "1" means 1 second or 1 millisecond or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> time_spec: use 3 bit instead of 4 ? We just need a range from 0 to 7.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> may be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another idea could be to use a single byte instead and separate all
>>>> other flags. As compiler usually reserve bits from the bottom and as
>>>> this bitfield is the first is much easier for the cpu to extract this
>>>> number. Personally I would keep the bitfield reducing to 3 bits.
>>>> has_time, has_date and has_offset: they are fine. The only change I
>>>> would insert a TDS_USMALLINT _res:10 before. In such was all the
>>>> single bits will occupy the top position leaving space for extensions.
>>>> Order of the fields are optimized to reduce structure size.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think these changes are reasonable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-)) hm, so what will be the final form ?
>>> typedef struct
>>> {
>>>    TDS_UINT8   time;
>>>    TDS_INT      date;
>>>    TDS_SMALLINT offset;
>>>    TDS_USMALLINT _res:10;    // <-- NEW (so total count of bits will be
>>> 16)
>>> ?
>>>    TDS_USMALLINT time_prec:3; // <-- CHANGED ?
>>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_time:1;
>>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_date:1;
>>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_offset:1;
>>> } TDS_DATETIMEALL;
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Quite similar:
>>
>> typedef struct
>> {
>>    TDS_UINT8   time;
>>    TDS_INT      date;
>>    TDS_SMALLINT offset;
>>    TDS_USMALLINT time_prec:3;
>>    TDS_USMALLINT _res:10;
>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_time:1;
>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_date:1;
>>    TDS_USMALLINT has_offset:1;
>> } TDS_DATETIMEALL;
>>
>> I think I'll go with this. time with fixed precision is ok for me.
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>> I think we agree to:
>> - have a single structure
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>> - add _res field and change precision bits (structure above)
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>> - have time with fixed precision
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>> I'm not quite sure about date offset.
>>
>
> what do you think here ?
>
> May be that it is not related, but I noticed that FreeTDS converts
> "datetimeoffset" to "datetime2" bit different than does SQL Server.
> For example we have any table "t" with "datetimeoffset" column named "dto",
> with value : '2014-05-19 12:50:00 +01:00'
>
> When I do in SQL Server:
>  select dto, cast(dto as datetime2) as dt2 from t;
>
> I receive:
>  dto                                            dt2
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>  2014-05-19 12:50:00 +01:00   2014-05-19 12:50:00
>
> Which corresponds to: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb630289.aspx
> Where is stated: "The date and time are copied to the datetime2 value, and
> the time zone is truncated."
>
> But when I am trying use dbconvert() which calls tds_convert() for
> srctype=SYBMSDATETIMEOFFSET to desttype=SYBMSDATETIME2 then I receive UTC
> datetime (shifted by time zone offset)
>
> So converting (casting) in SQL Server is different from that used in FreeTDS
> ... is it as expected ?
>
>
> Thanks
> -Laco.
>


Not expected, I'll have a look at what MS does.

Frediano
_______________________________________________
FreeTDS mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds