Bug: Messages Tab Always Shows (0 Ms Taken)

[slimso]

Hello!

I noticed a small bug a while ago, I thought it would be fixed by now, but I see it has been overlooked.

After executing queries, in the Mesages tab, the time it takes to execute the queries is always 0.

In the History tab though, the time is displayed correctly.

Think you guys can squeeze this fix in the next release?

Thank you.

[peterlaursen]

It is not a bug really.

Please refer to:

http://webyog.com/faq/8_147_en.html

HISTORY displayss the closest we can come to 'server execution time'. MESSAGES as close as we can come to 'time for transmission of data'.  On localhost it will have to be a very big result if it shall not be 0 (zero).

If you experience behaviour different from what is explained here, then please detail, because then it may be a bug!

[Tattoo]

Whenever I get confused, I go here and solve my problems

dragonfly tattoo

dragonfly tattoo design

polish eagle tattoo

[slimso]

peterlaursen wrote on May 22 2007, 05:39 PM:

It is not a bug really.

Please refer to:

http://webyog.com/faq/8_147_en.html

HISTORY displayss the closest we can come to 'server execution time'. MESSAGES as close as we can come to 'time for transmission of data'.  On localhost it will have to be a very big result if it shall not be 0 (zero).

If you experience behaviour different from what is explained here, then please detail, because then it may be a bug!

Sorry I didn't search further before posting.

It's a shame mysql doesn't supply this information itself, like it does with LAST_INSERT_ID() or ROW_COUNT()…

But why not display the 'server execution time' in the MESSAGES tab and 'server execution time' + 'time for transmission of data' in the HISTORY tab?

It's kinda useless to keep on seeing '(0 ms taken)' where one would expect the execution time.

[peterlaursen]

why not ….. ??

well we actually asked users what they wanted (I think) about 9 monts ago!

Now what would YOU think would be teh most unambigious and useful way to display the information?

[slimso]

peterlaursen wrote on May 22 2007, 11:00 PM:

why not ….. ??

well we actually asked users what they wanted (I think) about 9 monts ago!

Now what would YOU think would be teh most unambigious and useful way to display the information?

I'm not claiming to be pertinent, but I think that the time displayed in the MESSAGES tab should be the approximate execution time.

The MESSAGES tab displays how many rows were affected or returned. It is a server response to the query, so it would be appropriate that “0 ms taken” would also refer to a server response (the “execution time”), not to a “data transfer time” that is particularly misleading if the client is on a remote host.

Here's an example of why I've posted this topic:

Code:

UPDATE users_14_copy SET email = CONCAT(email, '9999');
SELECT CONCAT(email, '9999') FROM users_14_copy;

after execution the MESSAGES tab displays:

Code:

(75647 row(s)affected)
(0 ms taken)

(75647 row(s)returned)
(10 ms taken)

and the HISTORY displays:

Code:

/*[14:34:21][4156 ms]*/ UPDATE users_14_copy SET email = CONCAT(email, '9999')
/*[14:34:21][ 10 ms]*/ SELECT CONCAT(email, '9999') FROM users_14_copy

I think I would have liked to see that the UPDATE query actually took 4 seconds instead of seeing how long it took for the response to get from the server to my remote client…

[peterlaursen]

thanks for your feedback.

however we will concentrate on releasing 6.0 FINAL before considering the display.

personally i always thought that HISTORY should display execution time for each individual statement, but what MESSAGES and STATUS line should display is open to me.

[slimso]

peterlaursen wrote on May 24 2007, 03:24 PM:

thanks for your feedback.

however we will concentrate on releasing 6.0 FINAL before considering the display.

personally i always thought that HISTORY should display execution time for each individual statement, but what MESSAGES and STATUS line should display is open to me.

Ok, no problem, it's not really an urgent matter.

Anyway, keep on doing a good job with 6.0!

You might remove the “Bug:” in the topic name, to avoid confusion.

Thank you for your time!

[Author]

Posts