On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:26 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 21:24, <shinya11.k...@nttdata.com> wrote: > > Hmmm, I didn't think YB was necessary, but what do others think? > > For me personally, without consulting Wikipedia, I know that Petabyte > comes after Terabyte and then I'm pretty sure it's Exabyte. After > that, I'd need to check. > > Assuming I'm not the only person who can't tell exactly how many bytes > are in a Yottabyte, would it actually be a readability improvement if > we started showing these units to people? > I hadn't really thought about that TBH; to me it seemed like an improvement, but I do see that others might not, and adding confusion is definitely not helpful. That said, it seems like having the code structured in a way that we can expand via adding an element to a table instead of the existing way it's written with nested if blocks is still a useful refactor, whatever we decide the cutoff units should be. > I'd say there might be some argument to implement as far as PB one > day, maybe not that far out into the future, especially if we got > something like built-in clustering. But I just don't think there's any > need to go all out and take it all the way to YB. There's an above > zero chance we'll break something of someones by doing this, so I > think any changes here should be driven off an actual requirement. > I got motivated to do this due to some (granted synthetic) work/workloads, where I was seeing 6+digit TB numbers and thought it was ugly. Looked at the code and thought the refactor was the way to go, and just stuck all of the known units in. > I really think this change is more likely to upset someone than please > someone. > I'd be interested to see reactions from people; to me, it seems a +1, but seems like -1, 0, +1 all valid opinions here; I'd expect more 0's and +1s, but I'm probably biased since I wrote this. :-)
