| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: \timing interval |
| Date: | 2016-07-10 00:08:15 |
| Message-ID: | 87poqm5pty.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Gavin" == Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
>> How about
>>
>> Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s)
Gavin> I like that, but I think the human form should retain the 3
Gavin> decimal places.
Scale it.
Time: 12.345 ms (0.012345s)
Time: 1234.567 ms (1.235s)
Time: 98765.432 ms (98.8s)
Time: 123456.789 ms (2m 3.5s)
Time: 12345678.666 ms (3h 24m 46s)
Gavin> In a few years, we may well have enormously multiprocessor
Gavin> computers with massive very fast permanent 'RAM' where the
Gavin> entire database is always in memory, so timing to the nearest
Gavin> microsecond could be useful.
But the original microsecond-resolution value is still right there, so I
don't see the issue.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-07-10 00:13:21 | Re: \timing interval |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-07-09 22:28:02 | Re: \timing interval |