Timestamp with a better resolution

Hello!
if i didn't omit something, Oracle 8.1 has a resolution
of only 1 sec. for timestamps. Is there any type with
a better resolution?
(even a clear "NO" would be of great help)
Thank you!
AUrelian Coasan

While this will not help you with Oracle8i, in 9i, there is a built-in type called timestamp (comes in 3 flavours, plain, with timezone, and with local timezone) which has fractional second accuracy.
Ciao
Daniel

Similar Messages

  • Delay function with 1ms or better resolution

    I need a simple delay function with 1ms or better resolution. I'm porting a dll over to an .so. I've tried usleep but it hangs. I got a symbol error when I tried setitimer. Is there a simple Delay function?
    Thanks
    Andy

    Try nanosleep()

  • I have an early 2008 Mac Pro, 8 gb ram with a Dell 27" display and a 42" LG TV. I am thinking about upgrading the stock ATI Radeon 2600 graphics card for better resolution, preferring 2 dvi outputs. Does anyone have any suggestions on the best card?

    I have an early 2008 Mac Pro, 8 gb ram with a Dell 27” display and a 42” LG TV. I am thinking about upgrading the stock ATI Radeon 2600 graphics card for better resolution, preferring 2 dvi outputs or 1 dvi and 1 vga vs 1 dvi and a mini. I don't do a lot of Final Cut Pro, gaming, etc. I am interested in best value for the graphics card.
    Does anyone have any suggestions on the best graphics card for these larger displays for the best value?
    Thanks,
    Kevin

    I recommend you install nothing older than the Apple-firware 5770, about US$250.
    RE: Mac Pro Replacement Graphics cards
    1) Apple brand cards,
    2) "sold in the Apple store" cards, and
    3) "Mac Edition" cards ...
    ... show all the screens, including Boot up screens, Safe Mode, Installer, Recovery, debug screens, and Alt/Option boot screens. At this writing, these choices include:
    1) Apple brand cards:
    • Apple-firmware 5770, about US$250** works near full speed in every model Mac Pro, Drivers in 10.6.5
    • Apple-firmware 5870, about US$450
    2) "sold in the Apple store" cards
    • NVIDIA Quadro 4000, about US$1200
    • NVIDIA Quadro 5000, about US$2500
    3) "Mac Edition" cards -- REQUIRE 10.8.3 or later:
    • SAPPHIRE HD 7950 3GB GDDR5 MAC Edition, about US$480** Vendor recommends Mac Pro 4,1
    • EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, about US$600
    The cards above require no more than the provided two 6-pin aux power connectors provided in the Mac Pro through 2012 model. Aux cables may not be provided for third-party cards, but are readily available.
    If you are Meet ALL of these:
    • running 10.8.3 or later AND
    • don't care about "no boot screens" etc AND
    • can re-wire or otherwise "work out" the power cabling, THEN:
    You can use many more cards, even most "PC-only cards"

  • LR 1.1 - Bug with Camera Raw resolutions?

    I don't know that this is necessary, but in case this is a bug, I am posting it here, as well as in the help forum. Is it my imagination or am I missing some obscure Lightroom Preferences setting?
    When selecting Edit in Photoshop, Lightroom 1.1 seeems to ignore the Camera Raw resolution settings for Nikon .nef files. While I have Nikon's recommended D1x natve resolution set for Photoshop's Camera Raw Plug-in (5.9MP - 3008x1960 @300ppi at 8-bits per pixel), when a selected .nef file is opened through Lightroom, it comes into Photoshop using all the D1x pixels (10.5MP - 4011x2613 @240ppi at 16-bits per pixel).
    Is this yet another Lightroom resolution bug?
    Did the same problem occur with the beta and 1.0 versions of Lightroom?
    Why are all these Preference Settings hidden away in so many different places, and then not communicating with one another? If they must be set up in different dialog boxes for each application, you should be able to get to all related Preferences for Lightroom, Camera Raw and Photoshop in one place -- ideally the Photoshop Preferences dialog boxes.

    No need to double post one forum section is enough.
    Don
    Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.10 & Win XP, Pentax *ist D
    http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

  • How do I export jpgs as tifs with the original resolution ?

    Hi,
    I am very new to Lightroom 5 (I only installed it today (on Windows 8.1) :-)) but I have read Victoria Bampton's Quick Start Guide and have read a number of forum posts over the last few weeks to get an idea about how the program generally works.
    I am embarking on a project to scan and archive my family's photos and videos, and I will be using Lightroom to manage the collection.  To start the project, I have just imported over 10,000 digital photos taken by a variety of cameras (36 of them, according to Lightroom !)  over the last 12 years or so into a new Lightroom catalogue.   These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
    I started by doing an Export of a small number of photos to save the .jpg files as .tif files, but when reviewing the results, I noticed that the image's resolution was changed during the export.  For example, one original jpg is only 96ppi but the exported tif is 240ppi.  Another jpg is 180ppi and the tif is 240ppi.  At least, that's what the metadata seems to be telling me (via the Details tab of the Properties dialog in Windows), so I assume it's true...
    I understand that the 240ppi that I am seeing in the .tif file metadata was specified in the Image Sizing section of the Export dialog, so that's not the issue.  
    I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.   It would be great if the resolution setting in the Export dialog was controlled by the Resize to Fit checkbox, like the other settings in the section, but it doesn't appear to be (it's enabled even if the Resize to Fit checkbox is unticked).
    I then thought about using the Library Filters to filter by the Horizontal Resolution metadata, so that I could select all the photos with the same resolution and export just those with the Resolution setting in the Export dialog set to the right number, and then repeat that process for each different group of original photos with a different resolution.  Unfortunately, I have not been able to work out how to filter by the horizontal resolution metadata field - it doesn't seem to be available in the dropdown list of fields shown when I click on the up-down arrow next to the "Date" or "Camera" (etc.) columns in the Library Filter pane.
    Finally, here's my question (or three):  
    Is there a way to export .jpgs to .tif files while keeping the original resolution ?  
    Alternatively, is there a way to select groups of photos by their horizontal or vertical resolution (so just those photos could be exported in a group with the right resolution specified) ?
    Or is there any other way to do what I want (convert jpg to tif with the same resolution and keeping all the metadata) ?
    Thanks for reading all the way through to the end.
    John.

    These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
    I'm not sure why you say this. In terms of long-term archival format, I think the two are equal, I am not aware of other reasons to do this, and thus in my opinion, the task of globally turning all your JPGs into TIFFs seems unnecessary. You don't gain anything by doing this. But you sure will spend a lot of time and take up a lot of disk space doing this.
    I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.
    Again, I think you have embarked upon an unnecessary task. The ppi in the file is essentially meaningless. A photo that has (for example) 3000x2000 pixels saved at 240 ppi is the exact same photo as the same photo 3000x2000 saved at 180ppi, not a single pixel has changed. You are placing a meaning and importance to this ppi number that just doesn't exist.
    To answer your questions at the bottom, I would advise you to not do the things you are talking about, it seems to me that you have greatly misunderstood things.

  • Gaining better resolution from my final cut hd express films

    Hey, can anyone help my on going conundrum once and for all. I've asked editors, all be it avid based, apple technicians and i've still yet to have a definite answer. I've been editing on my macbook using imovie 08 HD, which has been fairly adequate. However, I also have a g5 powermac with th final cut express HD software. I'm not too fussed about livetype and other beneficial FX that final cut express can offer, but what i do want is a better resolution for the finished product, as the final result tends to be a bit blocky. I used to work in TV as director and so have sat in on many an edits. I guess what i'm after is the amateur version of onlining, if this exists??? with AVID suites, in simple, this basically involves re-entering all the rushes, but i've got a funy feeling that it's not that simple sat at home, as the kit in an online suite, would set me back a couple of 100K!
    I guess in short what i'm asking asking is A) will i gain a better resolution from using final cut HD express and B) how do you gain the highest possible resolution on either pieces of software. My camera is the Sony Z1 and i'm currently using iDVD.
    If anyone can help I'd be hugely grateful!!

    thanks for the hospitality! i only wish i'd used the forum earlier...it's nice to there are still decent people out there, willing to share their knowledge..!
    my macbook is the 2GHz core duo, but not sure about the G5, it's circa 2004 (i know that's no real help!)
    the 'blockyness' in imovie has been there from day 1 and always appears after i have burned the movie off in idvd or merely exported it to an mpeg4 file or likewise and on sequences where i have applied an effect, especially raised the exposure levels the 'blockyness; is almost lego like! but as a general rule of thumb, when editing the rushes look great. once they've been exported its as if they have become 2nd/3rd generation. I've imported stuff to final cut express 2 (recently got the upgrade software to HD express) the rushes look fine, but i'm presuming once i export the same will apply. The quicktime software i'm using is the 7.4.5 version, can this have an effect on the quality? and whether or not the movie is viewed back on the mac or through an external video monitor, the same quality is apparent. I am capturing straight from the camera, but not sure if im using cinemode, this isn't a feature i'm aware of in the menu of the Z1.
    I'm no steve jobs, but I'm pretty sure the problem lies around the exporting stage of my movie making. for example, when with imovie, when i produce a title. the edges of the lettering are perfect. once it's been exported, the edges of all the letters are very soft. I've had a look at some other discussion group pages to see if anyone shares the same problem. somebody proposed changing the expert settings in imovie8 which i did but to no avail.
    I have toast software that i have not yet used, would this make any difference?
    Many thanks again for your guidance.

  • How to get reasonable font size with higher screen resolution

    I'm using my new Mac Mini as living room PC with 42" plasma screen and tv itself seems to support quite well the 'better' resolutions like 1024x768. Unfortunately then text is too small to read from sofa (which is about 3 meters away from tv). I have switched back to 800x600 resolution where font sizes are almost ok but many programs complaint about the resolution (e.g. Google Earth) and need to change the resolution back and worth to get some OK button pressed which is glumsy.
    I have also found pretty good Tinkertool to finetune font sizes but it does not affect all font sizes like I want. So question is there any better solution how I could find theme that suites better for living room purpose (have not find any theme possibilities for MacOSX). In Linux I could finetune X fontserver, in WIndows I could fine tune the theme used to have bigger fonts, how do I do it in this cool mac?

    I hear you! I would also like to see an answer for this. I am running Leopard on a Mac Mini on my 50 inch display in the living room. I have set the resolution to 1080p so that the video and photos are as sharp as possible. (man the videos look great)...
    But, I have a very hard time reading the menu bar, as well as safari and mail from this machine. I realize that there are ways to increase the font sizes, but:
    1) when I restart safari, I have to change the settings each time
    2) when I restart mail, I have have to change the setting each time
    3) I cannot figure out a way to make the menu bar larger
    I really don't want to bring the mac mini down to a resolution like 800X600 - I think it would look horrible on the large screen.
    What is a big screen lover to do?
    Any help would be most appreciated...
    Cheers!

  • Is it possible to create a timestamp with an accuracy of 1ms?

    I want to acquire data with PCI-6023 and write them with a precise timestamp to a file. Is it possible to create a timestamp with an accuracy of 1ms?
    Maybe somebody can tell me experiences with logging data over a time periode up to 24 hours (and time-accuracy of 1ms)?

    Hi Hans, This forum is related to one of National Instruments' automation products rather than data aquisition. Perhaps you will acheive better results if you post your question to one of the "Measurement Devices" forms instead.

  • HT5299 can i connect my sony smart TV via thunderbolt port for better resolution.

    can i connect my sony smart TV via thunderbolt port for better resolution.

    You can connect the TV via the Thunderbolt port. However if the result is "better resolution" would depend on what resolution you have now (I'm guessing you mean with the HDMI adapter?)
    I'm myself connecting the Mini Mac with a Thunderbolt->VGA adapter to my TV and get full 1920x1080 resolution.
    Have you checked your Display settings? Make sure mirroring is off, then check what resolutions you can get on the current connection.
    Please return with some more data.

  • Create a timestamp with current_timestamp but keeping the seconds as 00

    Hi Everyone,
    I was wondering if there is an easier/better way to use the current_timestamp as my base timestamp and display another timestamp with current time and the seconds as 00. E.g., 4:30:00. The below is working but I am thinking it is overly complex.
    CAST('timestamp' || ' ' || char(39) || TRIM(CAST(YEAR(CURRENT_DATE) AS CHAR)) || '-' ||
    CASE WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '1' THEN '01'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '2' THEN '02'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '3' THEN '03'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '4' THEN '04'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '5' THEN '05'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '6' THEN '06'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '7' THEN '07'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '8' THEN '08'
    WHEN MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '9' THEN '09'
    ELSE CAST(MONTH(CURRENT_DATE) AS CHAR) END || '-' ||
    CASE WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '1' THEN '01'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '2' THEN '02'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '3' THEN '03'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '4' THEN '04'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '5' THEN '05'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '6' THEN '06'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '7' THEN '07'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '8' THEN '08'
    WHEN DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) = '9' THEN '09'
    ELSE CAST(DAYOFMONTH(CURRENT_DATE) AS CHAR) END || ' ' ||
    TRIM(CASE WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '1' THEN '01'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '2' THEN '02'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '3' THEN '03'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '4' THEN '04'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '5' THEN '05'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '6' THEN '06'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '7' THEN '07'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '8' THEN '08'
    WHEN HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '9' THEN '09'
    ELSE CAST(HOUR(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) AS CHAR) END) || ':' ||
    TRIM(CASE WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '1' THEN '01'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '2' THEN '02'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '3' THEN '03'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '4' THEN '04'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '5' THEN '05'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '6' THEN '06'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '7' THEN '07'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '8' THEN '08'
    WHEN MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) = '9' THEN '09'
    ELSE CAST(MINUTE(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) AS CHAR) END) || ':00' ||
    char(39) AS TIMESTAMP)
    Thanks in advance for any comments
    Edited by: user10930658 on Mar 25, 2009 2:05 PM

    timestampadd(SQL_TSI_SECOND, -second(current_timestamp ), current_timestamp )

  • Why have I lost the info of  timezone (Timestamps with Timezone )

    I have been trying to get timestamps with timezones working in my Java application, but I don't seem to get the data I expect back from the JDBC driver
    my field type is Timestamps with Timezone ,in the database,I saw the info of (12-DEC-06 01.12.12.123000 PM -06:00),but I don't know How to get it from Java
    I've use the Timestamp aa =rs.getTimestamp("FIELDVALUE");but the timezone is lost, what can I do?
    thanks

    Timestamps are always GMT based (or could be thought of as timezone neutral) so what you should get back is a timestamp representing a GMT equivalent of the time you see that has a 6 hour offset from GMT. In other words, if the time were 1 PM Central Standard you would get a GMT time of 7 PM.
    You should then be able to display that time in any time zone you wish using SimpleDateFormat and specifying the time zone you want to display it in. So if you then display it with Central Standard, the 7 PM GMT would then display as 1 PM again. In other words, 7 PM GMT and 1 PM Central Standard are the same timestamp
    If you just display the timestamp using a toString(), you will get the time in the default time zone of the JVM..
    Whether the driver actually does this correctly with the Oracle database I can't say. I've made several posts in a variety of places complaining that the driver does not work correctly with timestamps but my experience is limited to regular timestamp fields, not the new Oracle type of timestamp with timezone.
    Based on my experience, what you are more likely getting back in the 1 PM- 7 PM example is 7 PM in the default timezone of the JVM.
    You should look at the getTimestamp with Calendar options to see if they work better for you.
    The main thing to keep in mind is that timestamps are really timezone neutral.

  • Compare Timestamp with a number in hours

    Hi,
    Need help with this question.
    I want compare a timestamp with a value like 24 or 36 hour.
    For example:
    Timestamp: '16-jul-2010 13:00:00' when the 24 hours is pass ('17-jul-2010 13:05:10') then I want to update a table.
    Is it possible to to this in pl/sql or have Oracle 11G a function in it.
    I appreciate some help.
    Thanks.

    Having article_id in both tables you could try something like (not tested as I don't have database access)
    update table_1 t1
       set result = 1
    where 24 * (sysdate - timestamp_placed) > (select time
                                                  from table_2
                                                 where article_id = t1.article_id
                                               )Regards
    Etbin
    sorry (working doing it from home and someone posted a not completed template)
    Try to do it with a single update or else ... - you'll hear from damorgan ;)
    update gkr_droogkamer1 dgr
       set result = 1
    where result = 0
       and 24 * (sysdate - timestamp_placed) > (select dry_time
                                                  from gkr_artikel
                                                 where article_id = dgr.article_id
                                               )You'd better come up with a data sample and someone will provide a tested solution asap. Something like:
    create table gkr_droogkamer1
    select 1 article_id,sysdate - 50 / 24 timestamp_placed,1 result from dual union all
    select 2 article_id,sysdate - 40 / 24 timestamp_placed,0 result from dual union all
    select 3 article_id,sysdate - 30 / 24 timestamp_placed,0 result from dual union all
    select 4 article_id,sysdate - 20 / 24 timestamp_placed,0 result from dual union all
    select 5 article_id,sysdate - 10 / 24 timestamp_placed,0 result from dual;
    create table gkr_artikel
    select 1 article_id,36 dry_time from dual union all
    select 2 article_id,36 dry_time from dual union all
    select 3 article_id,24 dry_time from dual union all
    select 4 article_id,24 dry_time from dual union all
    select 5 article_id,24 dry_time from dual;Regards
    Etbin
    Edited by: Etbin on 20.7.2010 16:10

  • ¿Can be a better resolution in the external display?

    I recently buy a new LCD ViewSonic 22" full HD (its declared to support 1920X1080) and Im very happy with my acquisition. Now I can work in a large screen with Page and Final Cut Pro but still I feel it can be a better resolution in the bigger display the same as in the little 13" in my MBP 7.1 Indeed the display resolution it's 1080p in the LCD and 1280X800 in the little screen. I would like to ask if I did the right settings and if not what can I do? If it is possible of course.
    Thanks in advance
    Josef Carel

    No worries man .. your concern is known as pixel width or pixels per square inch..
    you do the maths by multiplying horizontal inches with vertical inches of your display
    that's your display area in square inches ..
    and then you multiply 1920 x 1080 ..
    that's your total number of pixels
    when you divide the area to the number of pixels you get pixels per inc
    and the higher the value the smaller each individual pixel therefore harder for your eye to spot them resulting in smoother display ..
    That's why I've advised you the 22 inch display in the first place and I'm sure now you appreciate the advice more

  • EXACTLY what cable(s) do I need to connect my MacBook Pro (early 2011) to an external display with a 2560x1440 resolution?

    I am trying to connect my MacBook Pro (early 2011 w/ Intel HD 3000/ 384Mb) to an external display with a 2560x1440 resolution. Specifically, what cable/connections do I need to display at this resolution? I cannot get the display to work using a "Thunderbolt to HDMI" or a "Thunderbolt to DVI" connector.  Note:  I used both older and newer (uni-directional) HDMI cables on the first config, and a Dual-link DVI cable on the second config.   Apple specs state this is possible ( support.apple.com/kb/SP619 ), but I am at a loss as to how this can be done.  Thanks in advance for the help!

    You use a Mini DisplayPort to either HDMI or dual-link DVI adapter. If that component doesn't work, something's wrong with either the cable or something else in the connection.
    (112855)

  • Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?

    Hello,
    Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?
    Thanxs for your answers.
    Gerald

    On Second thoughts...
    I don't really know how well Logic Express 7 performs on the Mac Mini because I have not yet had the chance to experience the two together. Don't let that put you off the idea though! From my understanding of the system requirements printed on the Logic Express homepage, it states that a G4 or faster system is required, however Apple personally recommend a Dual G4 or G5 is recommended alongside a minimum of 512MB of Ram. This Does mean that Logic Express will run on the Mac Mini but you will most probably find it lags when moving samples in real time and rendering them onto your hard drive. If you really want to enjoy making "serious" music on the Mac then you really need to be looking at the iMac G5 or the iMac Core Duo (Intel) purely for your tempers sake. As for an Intel Mac Mini, there is no indication as to when we will be seeing one on the market and therefore you may find yourself on the fence between keeping your fixed budget and holding on a little or jumping in and getting on the right road to a digital musical life - mac style.
    Maybe this will inspire your decision:
    http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/08/how-to-turn-your-mac-mini-into-a-low-cost-rec ording-studio/
    Hope this helps
    -Pos

Maybe you are looking for