On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:23, benhoyt wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks for the tip --
> For example, are you assuming that your clock() call in logging is
> the very first call made?
Yes, we were making that assumption (the time.clock() call in the import of our
log module), which was true in our code, but I can see where it's not a good
thing to assume generally.
> Also, IIUC
> 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.
Thanks for the tip -- yes, I hadn't thought about that, but you're right,
Quer
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 15:30, benhoyt 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 a
On 16 Feb, 15:30, benhoyt 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
On Feb 16, 2:30 pm, benhoyt 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.
It's not an unreasonable request, though I don't think logging should
be used to time things accurately. I'm a
> A simpler solution would be to caclulate the time it takes to the handle
> the request using time.clock() and include it in the log message.
> Something like:
Thanks, Ross. Actually, we are doing exactly that already -- it's how we
noticed the timestamp issue in the first place. However, that
benhoyt wrote:
>This works, but as you can see, it's a bit hacky. Is there a better way to =
>fix it? (I'd like the fix to affect all loggers, including the root logger.=
>)
A simpler solution would be to caclulate the time it takes to the handle
the request using time.clock() and include it in
