On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 soon as we get past 1 second. However, comparing > that > >> output to what I had suggests that maybe it's better to keep a leading > >> zero in two-digit fields, that is render times like "00:01.234", > >> "01:23.456", or "01:23:45.678" rather than suppressing the initial zero > as > >> I had in my examples. It's an extra character but I think it reinforces > >> the meaning. > > > +1 > > The larger jump in widths from no MM:SS to HH:MM:SS is a good visual cue. > > Jumping from MM:SS to H:MM:SS to HH:MM:SS would be more subtle and > possibly > > confusing. > > 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 (12:00.001) > Time: 3660001.200 ms (01:01:00.001) > Time: 43920001.200 ms (12:12:00.001) > Time: 176460001.200 ms (2 01:01:00.001) > Time: 216720001.200 ms (2 12:12:00.001) > Time: 8816460001.200 ms (102 01:01:00.001) > Time: 8856720001.200 ms (102 12:12:00.001) > > Barring objections I'll commit this soon. > > regards, tom lane > Some kind of units on the parenthetical format would be helpful. Glancing at several of these values it takes me a couple of seconds to decide what I'm reading. -- Peter van Hardenberg San Francisco, California "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt."—Kurt Vonnegut
