On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, sturlamolden <sturlamol...@yahoo.no> wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 15:30, benhoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems to me that the logging module should use a millisecond-accurate > timestamp (time.clock) on Windows, just like the "timeit" module does. > > AFAIK, the Windows performance counter has long-term accuracy issues, > so neither is perfect. Preferably we should have a timer with the long- > term accuracy of time.time and the short-term accuracy of time.clock. > > Sturla I just uploaded a timer extension I wrote a while back which tries to solve some of this: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/timer (supports Python 2 and 3) It takes an idea from MSDN Magazine about creating reliable and accurate high resolution timers and converts it into somewhat of a threading.Timer replacement. It accepts a duration in microseconds and can be stopped, giving you the current elapsed microseconds. I should add an infinite argument so it can be used more like a stopwatch, rather than requiring a duration. It appears to be fairly accurate so far, but I wouldn't count lives on it just yet.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
