51 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
 
|
# SQLite Forum: INTEGER vs TEXT timestamp storage discussion
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Metadata
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
||
|
|
|---|---|
|
||
|
|
| Institute | Molodetz Institute — Research & Retrieval Division |
|
||
|
|
| Subject | agent-memory-recency-tracking |
|
||
|
|
| Document type | Source Dossier |
|
||
|
|
| Tier | 1 |
|
||
|
|
| Source title | SQLite Forum post on date/time storage representations |
|
||
|
|
| Source URL | https://sqlite.org/forum/forumpost/92d9dbc02808629a?raw |
|
||
|
|
| Source publisher / author | SQLite official forum (community post, unnamed individual poster) |
|
||
|
|
| Source type | forum thread |
|
||
|
|
| Source date (published) | Unknown — not stated |
|
||
|
|
| Date researched | 2026-10-09 |
|
||
|
|
| Researched by | tai (agent), model: Claude Sonnet 5, on behalf of retoor |
|
||
|
|
| Research method | web search synthesis |
|
||
|
|
| Confidence | Medium |
|
||
|
|
| Status | Active |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Summary
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A SQLite community forum discussion on the tradeoffs between storing timestamps as Unix-epoch INTEGER versus ISO-8601 TEXT. Explicitly an opinion/forum post, not a controlled benchmark — the search tool itself flagged this distinction, which this dossier preserves.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Key findings
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- SQLite has no dedicated datetime column type; it natively supports three representations: TEXT (`YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.SSS`), REAL (Julian day number), and INTEGER (Unix time).
|
||
|
|
- The forum poster's argument for integers: faster indexed range queries (`BETWEEN`/`>=`/`<=` directly on the integer index), no text parsing needed, smaller storage footprint than ISO-8601 text.
|
||
|
|
- The poster's argument is explicitly their own opinion, not a measured benchmark, per the search synthesis of this thread.
|
||
|
|
- Integer Unix timestamps are unambiguous across daylight-saving-time transitions in a way that naive local-time text values are not (a correctness point, separate from the raw-speed point).
|
||
|
|
- A counterpoint noted in the broader discussion: ISO-8601 text sorts correctly as a plain string and remains the most human-readable choice; its index entries are simply larger, not functionally broken.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Pros / strengths
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Directly surfaces both sides of exactly the tradeoff this subject's conclusion needed to resolve (integer vs. text for a `last_used` column), from a venue (SQLite's own community forum) with direct relevant expertise.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Cons / limitations / caveats
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Self-admittedly opinion-based, not a controlled benchmark — no actual timing numbers were produced in the material reviewed. The practical recommendation this subject reaches (use INTEGER for `last_used` specifically, because it's a hot, comparison-heavy column, while leaving the vault's other timestamp columns as ISO-8601 TEXT) is a judgment call informed by this thread's reasoning, not a number verified against tai's actual workload.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Relevance to tai
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Directly informs the one explicitly-flagged exception in this subject's conclusion: recommending `last_used` be stored as Unix-epoch INTEGER even though every other timestamp column in tai's vault schema is ISO-8601 TEXT, specifically because this column is compared/sorted/range-scanned on the hot path in a way the others generally are not.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Changelog
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Date | Change |
|
||
|
|
|---|---|
|
||
|
|
| 2026-10-09 | Initial dossier created. |
|