Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

2016-09-08 13:10 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 4 Sep. 2016 3:36 am, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > > > > After further thought I concluded that not providing any labeling of > > days is a bad idea. > > Yeah. I think labeling days is definitely good. I'm

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 4 Sep. 2016 3:36 am, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > After further thought I concluded that not providing any labeling of > days is a bad idea. Yeah. I think labeling days is definitely good. I'm glad you changed that. Personally I'd like to trim milliseconds when dealing with

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

> > ... and it would probably greatly reduce the amount of mailing list > traffic asking for version if nothing else. That was the major reason for wanting it. The second is that if an explain were posted to a forum like stackexchange, the reader wouldn't have to wonder what version produced the

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 9/6/16 1:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: It's sorta out of my hands now, but what Tom said earlier is that because > this is client-side code, it wouldn't use existing interval code. > EXPLAIN *is* server-side, we couldn't use this code, but we could leverage > existing interval code there to achieve

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Corey Huinker writes: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> I'd find this useful in the final output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE as well; any >> objections to adding it? > It's sorta out of my hands now, but what Tom said earlier is that

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/3/16 2:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I pushed the patch using this: >> >> Time: 176460001.200 ms (2 d 01:01:00.001) >> >> and all else as before. >> > > I'd find this useful in the final output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE as

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 9/3/16 2:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I pushed the patch using this: Time: 176460001.200 ms (2 d 01:01:00.001) and all else as before. I'd find this useful in the final output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE as well; any objections to adding it? -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

I wrote: > Attached is an updated patch that does it like that. Sample output > (generated by forcing specific arguments to PrintTiming): > Time: 0.100 ms > Time: 1.200 ms > Time: 1001.200 ms (00:01.001) > Time: 12001.200 ms (00:12.001) > Time: 60001.200 ms (01:00.001) > Time: 720001.200 ms

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Peter van Hardenberg writes: > Some kind of units on the parenthetical format would be helpful. I was really hoping to not re-open that can of worms :-( regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Corey Huinker writes: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Well, that code's on the backend side so we're not going to just call it > >> in any case. And I

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Corey Huinker writes: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, that code's on the backend side so we're not going to just call it >> in any case. And I think we don't want to be quite so verbose as to go up >> to hh:mm:ss.fff as

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Corey Huinker writes: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Note that times from 1 second to 1 hour all get the nn:nn.nnn > >> treatment. I experimented with

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Corey Huinker writes: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Note that times from 1 second to 1 hour all get the nn:nn.nnn >> treatment. I experimented with these variants for sub-minute times: >> ... >> but it seems like the first

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Sorry, that probably added no clarity at all, I was confusing > > seconds with milliseconds in the example values :-( > > After a bit of further fooling with sample values, I propose this > progression: > > Time:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Corey Huinker writes: > I'm going to hold off a bit to see if anybody else chimes in, and if not > I'm going to deliver a patch. I've already been updating yours, no need for another. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

I wrote: > Sorry, that probably added no clarity at all, I was confusing > seconds with milliseconds in the example values :-( After a bit of further fooling with sample values, I propose this progression: Time: 0.100 ms Time: 1.200 ms Time: 1001.200 ms (0:01.001) Time: 12001.200 ms (0:12.001)

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > So for clarity's sake: first suitable format among these: > > > Time: 59.999 ms > > Time: 121.999 ms (2:01.999) > > Time: 10921.999 ms (3:02:01.999) > > Time: 356521.999 ms (4 3:02:01.999) > > Sorry, that probably

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

I wrote: > So for clarity's sake: first suitable format among these: > Time: 59.999 ms > Time: 121.999 ms (2:01.999) > Time: 10921.999 ms (3:02:01.999) > Time: 356521.999 ms (4 3:02:01.999) Sorry, that probably added no clarity at all, I was confusing seconds with milliseconds in the example

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

[ This patch is marked Ready For Committer, and discussion seems to have died off, so let's get on with committing something ... ] Corey Huinker writes: > Generally speaking, people disliked the third mode for \timing, and were > generally fine with AndrewG's idea of

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed I did some tests and found nothing special. The stated

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

OK. as I said just got confused if there was any way to disable. anyway the code is ok, does what it says and is well formatted. I will change now! So sorry, for my confused. Thnks! Em quinta-feira, 25 de agosto de 2016, Corey Huinker < corey.huin...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > On Wed, Aug 24,

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Gerdan Santos wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed Sorry, my mistake! I could not find a way to disable this

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: tested, failed Documentation:tested, failed I could not find a way to disable this functionality , I see

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 7/15/16 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Meh ... if we're using one-letter abbreviations for hour and second, > using three letters for minute seems just arbitrarily inconsistent. Well, it's the SI abbreviation. We also need to think through localization options. Using the 01:02:03.004 format

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 7/13/16 2:06 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > >> Time: 3601083.544 ms (1h 0m 1.084s) > > > That works for me, except that the abbreviation for minute is "min". > > Meh ... if we're using

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/13/16 2:06 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: >> Time: 3601083.544 ms (1h 0m 1.084s) > That works for me, except that the abbreviation for minute is "min". Meh ... if we're using one-letter abbreviations for hour and second, using three

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 7/13/16 2:06 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > Time: 71041.022 ms (1m 11.041s) > pg_sleep > -- > > (1 row) > > Time: 3601083.544 ms (1h 0m 1.084s) > pg_sleep > -- > > (1 row) That works for me, except that the abbreviation for minute is "min". -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 7/9/16 4:00 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > >> How about >> >> Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) >> > > That's similar to what I had in mind, so I'd be happy with that. > > > -- > Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 7/9/16 4:00 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: How about Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) That's similar to what I had in mind, so I'd be happy with that. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 10/07/16 12:08, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Gavin" == Gavin Flower 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

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

> "Gavin" == Gavin Flower 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:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 10/07/16 08:00, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the >> numbers. My phrasing of the problem is that after a long query,

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> How about >> >> Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) >> >> ? > > +1 LGTM +1 -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Andrew Gierth wrote: > How about > > Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) > > ? +1 LGTM -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > > > Peter Eisentraut writes: > >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the > >> numbers. My

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the > > numbers. My phrasing of the problem is that after a long query, you > > might get output

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Andrew Gierth writes: > How about > Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) Hmm ... worksforme. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the >> numbers. My phrasing of the problem is that after a long query, you >> might get output like this:

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Peter Eisentraut writes: > I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the > numbers. My phrasing of the problem is that after a long query, you > might get output like this: > Time: 1234567.666 ms > which is pretty useless. What I mean by

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 7/9/16 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: NAK --- if you're trying to do arithmetic on the numbers, converting them to hh:mm:ss notation isn't the best first step. I think a separate setting somewhere to select the format would be good. Please *don't* do "\timing interval" as that confuses the

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

2016-07-09 18:59 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 7/7/16 5:52 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > >> Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human > >> friendly formats? > > > Something like what you are

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, might I suggest that leading zeroes in such a format are not > helpful? That is, I'd want to see "1:02.345" not "00:01:02.345". Or 1m 2s 345ms -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/7/16 5:52 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: >> Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human >> friendly formats? > Something like what you are proposing might as well be the default and > only format. NAK --- if

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 7/7/16 5:52 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human friendly formats? Something like what you are proposing might as well be the default and only format. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

2016-07-08 0:13 GMT+02:00 Peter Geoghegan : > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Corey Huinker > wrote: > > Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human > > friendly formats? > > Yes, it would. I've thought about doing this myself.

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human > friendly formats? Yes, it would. I've thought about doing this myself. So, +1 to the idea from me. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via

[HACKERS] \timing interval

\timing is great. \timing is helpful. \timing has made me really good at mentally estimating numbers modulo 360. Wouldn't it be great if we had a way of printing timing in more human friendly formats? Attached is a patch that allows the following (new/interesting bits in bold): # \timing