Timeline for answer to High-precision clock in Python by ereOn
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 22:30 | comment | added | Gabriel Staples |
I've posted my experimental results here. time.perf_counter_ns() has about 0.069 us precision on my Linux machine, and 0.100 us precision on Windows.
|
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 14:38 | comment | added | djvg |
This should now be the accepted answer IMHO. Also see tables with timing results in PEP-418 and PEP-564. The latter mentions 100ns precision measured for perf_counter on Windows 8.
|
|
| Sep 17, 2021 at 0:39 | comment | added | starriet 차주녕 |
I tried the code on Windows, and got: 0.0625, 0.0625, 1.0497794, 2.0537843. The output of the perf_counter() should be greater than that of the process_time() + 1, isn't it?
|
|
| Jul 7, 2016 at 22:48 | history | answered | ereOn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |