Re: [GENERAL] Confirming \timing output

2012-08-23 Thread John R Pierce
On 08/23/12 7:31 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: 0.524 MILLIseconds. as in 524 microseconds. microseconds is commonly abbreviated us. They should be µs ; (micro µ seconds s). Sadly, many setups still can't type anything outside 7-bit ASCII even in 2012 yeah, I know I could enter the alt+xyz e

Re: [GENERAL] Confirming \timing output

2012-08-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 08/24/2012 02:30 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 08/23/12 11:13 AM, Gauthier, Dave wrote: Time: 0.524 ms Is that really 0.524 ms? As in 524 nanoseconds? 0.524 MILLIseconds. as in 524 microseconds. microseconds is commonly abbreviated us. They should be µs ; (micro µ seconds s). Sadly,

Re: [GENERAL] Confirming \timing output

2012-08-23 Thread John R Pierce
On 08/23/12 11:13 AM, Gauthier, Dave wrote: Time: 0.524 ms Is that really 0.524 ms? As in 524 nanoseconds? 0.524 MILLIseconds. as in 524 microseconds. microseconds is commonly abbreviated us. afaik, its elapsed time, not CPU time. -- john r pierceN 37, W 1

Re: [GENERAL] Confirming \timing output

2012-08-23 Thread Steven Schlansker
On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Gauthier, Dave" wrote: > With \timing set on, I run an update statement and it reports > > Time: 0.524 ms > > Is that really 0.524 ms? As in 524 nanoseconds? 0.524ms = 524000ns Perhaps you meant microseconds? 0.524ms = 524us If all your data happens to

[GENERAL] Confirming \timing output

2012-08-23 Thread Gauthier, Dave
With \timing set on, I run an update statement and it reports Time: 0.524 ms Is that really 0.524 ms? As in 524 nanoseconds? Also, is this wallclock time or some sort of indication of how much cpu it took? Thanks for any answers !