Date:         Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:49:18 -0400
Reply-To:     Krishna Dandamudi <krishna_db@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Krishna Dandamudi <krishna_db@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: questions on datetime

Arto,

I can't see any specific reason to doubt SAS.
To get 29JUL2003:12:58:35 you need to have 1375102715 not 1059569915.
I believe it has something to do with dbf file not at sas side.
Please make sure, the number you have in dbf file represents datetime
format or not.

Code:
--------
data _null_;
dt=1059569915;
*dtime='29JUL2003:12:58:35'dt;
dtime=1375102715;
format dt datetime20. dtime datetime20.;
put dt dtime;
run;

Result:
---------
29JUL1993:12:58:35     29JUL2003:12:58:35

In SAS DATETIME formats count the number of seconds since January 1, 1960.

Here is the calculation:
 1059569915/(60*60*24*365) = 33.5987....Years
1960+ 33.5987=1993 Approx..


Thanks
Krishna


"Arto Raiskio" <arto.raiskio@SUOMENPOSTI.COM> wrote in message
news:bgui9t$sgqi9$1@ID-102906.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I have a current DBF file produced daily from a call monitor system known
as
> Aspect
>
> this DBF contains a date and time value variable which has values in it
like
>
> 1059569915 which translates via (data _null_;set;format d datetime.;put
d=)
> as
>
> 29JUL1993:12:58:35
>
> now the question is why is this value 1993 when I know it is for July 29
of
> this year or 2003 ?
>
> I know I can manually code for the wrong year value but I wonder why the 4
> year difference?
>
> a sample of yesterdays activity shows up as
>
> 1060214430 which sas translates to 06AUG93:00:00:30
>
> can't think why the vendor would be off by 4 years? any ideas?
>