On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:49:23PM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:55:53PM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote: > >> > >>> Dean, > >>> > >>> Maybe I missed something obvious here, but how does this patch handle > >>> the situation where people have turned on INTEGER_DATETIMES? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> David. > >>> -- > >>> David Fetter http://fetter.org/ > >>> Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter > >>> Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> Remember to vote! > >>> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > >> > >> Sorry, I don't understand. I am new to this code, but I can't see > >> how the INTEGER_DATETIMES flag will affect this code. I am using the > >> macros and functions from instrument.h and explain.c for timing, > >> which appear to use gettimeofday() or QueryPerformanceCounter(), > >> coverting the result to a double to report the total time spent > >> running the query. > > > > It's the double part I don't quite get. Shouldn't that be an int64 in > > the case of INTEGER_DATETIMES? > > > > Cheers, > > David. > > > > All the times are 64-bit integers (or at least structures with 2 > 32-bit integers in them) until the end, when the elapsed time is > converted to a double so that the query runtime can be printed out > in ms ("Query runtime: %.3f ms"). This is the same as EXPLAIN > ANALYSE, except in that case it is the total runtime ("Total > runtime: %.3f ms\n") that gets reported, including startup/shutdown > trigger times.
Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the noise :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
