Beside compatibility with SQL Server 2000 and 2005, is there any other issue to use datetime2

Question

I know datetime2 is faster than datetime and also is using less storage space for the same accuracy. Do you know any other impediment to migrate my fields from datetime to datetime2 rather than compatibility with SQL Server 2000 and 2005?

Thanks in advance.

Are you using a front end application against your database? Is it compatible with datetime2? — Nick.McDermaid, Jun 24 '17 at 13:05
datetime2 is more precise and a wider daterange https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1334143/datetime2-vs-datetime-in-sql-server but i wouldn't change the column format if there is no explicit need — Esteban P., Jun 24 '17 at 13:11
I now use `datetime2(0)` extensively to store datetimes that are useful and readable by humans (record audit timestamps) — Nick.McDermaid, Jun 25 '17 at 02:28

score 1 · Accepted Answer · answered Jun 24 '17 at 13:12

There are no downsides with using datetime2 versus datetime as long as you use datetime2 only or avoid conversions between these two data types.

There is a potentially breaking change in SQL Server 2016 with regards to value rounding when converting between these types that could be an issue depending on your code.

Beside compatibility with SQL Server 2000 and 2005, is there any other issue to use datetime2

1 Answers1