Who Needs Milliseconds Anyway?
Thursday, October 9th, 2008My latest bug adventure has to do with the fact that at work we're transitioning to MySQL from SQL Server, a move I fully support.
First some detail on the way our application works. When our applet client syncs with the server it copies the records locally and stores them in a local database which is not MySQL. When you modify a record in the client it gets persisted first to the local database. Anywhere from immediately to the nebulous "later", the client will sync again with the server. When this happens a summary list of the data you can see is sent to the client. This data includes when the record was last updated on the server. This time is compared with your local records and a sync occurs. Local records with a later modified date get sent to the server and remote records with a later modified date get pulled to the client.
I'm not wild about this setup, mainly because I don't trust the time on the client machine since it's well outside of my control. We're also using the client generated time on the server as the last modified time. I think at the very least we should use the server time (interestingly, this wouldn't solve this problem in this case). Slightly more ideally we should use an incrementing version field that will have the benefit of better detecting update conflicts. That aside, we found that when we moved our test systems to MySQL the client was sending way too many records up to the server. Everything in the client-side database appeared to be newer.
It turns out that MySQL truncates timestamps and dates to second granularity. Anything finer than a second (millisecond, microsecond, whatever) is simply dropped. In the client, we're using a database that supports milliseconds. What this means is that if you modify a record at 11:52:27.421 it gets stored with that timestamp locally. When it gets stored in MySQL it is marked as last modified at 11:52:27. Therefore, your local record is almost always newer by literally a fraction of a second. Cool, huh?
Luckily, there's already a bug report. Given that it was reported over 3 years ago, I'm confident it is very nearly fixed. I am still a bit amazed that a database so popular in the enterprise fails at this very basic level of functionality.
As always, there are workarounds to the problem ranging anywhere from storing sub-second values in a separate field and/or creating a user defined type.




