Grouper Developers Forum

[Tom Zeller <>]

It might be beneficial to take advantage of database-specific types
for timestamp storage (e.g. searching). However, the xml format used
by xmlimport/export should be
database agnostic to allow someone to move grouper across databases.
Would it then make sense to default to epoch millis unless some other
use case appears ?

As you say, since multiple events may occur at exactly the same time,
timestamp alone may not preserve order in all cases, hence the need
for a db sequence. Can you say more about the challenges of
importing/exporting a db sequence ? (it could just be an int that
wraps, right ?)

On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Chris Hyzer 
<>
 wrote:

> I had hoped to start using timestamp db types instead of number of
> millis... but on mysql it only seems to be to the precision of
> seconds, not millis... also, for user audit records, I think being
> able to order them is nice to have, but I don't know how to do it.
> Even if we have millis, there could be two with the same millis, in
> which case we are back to if we need a DB sequence or mysql auto
> increment.  These are annoying for import/export reasons.
>
> Anyways, should we go back to using an integer with number of millis
> in it?
> Also, should we look into auto-increment in db's for log ordering?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris