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
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
>
> ... 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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)
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
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
[ 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
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
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,
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:
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
> "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:
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,
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:
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
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
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
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:
> "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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
\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
48 matches
Mail list logo