I was joking. Emoticons don't thrill me.

>Well, now I can't tell if you are joking (dry humour?)...
>
>I put the :~) there to let people know that I am not being 100% serious; in other words, I wasn't trying to criticize the advice David F. gave. I agreed with his advice, but thought that this was something a little extra to think about.
>
>Did you notice that I said "mostly joking"? The point is, if someone didn't think about it, and he/she ran a long test overnight using SECONDS(), they may get unexpected results. So I added to David F.'s advice, but in a way that I felt would not come across as a criticism.
>
>As far as your advice: I don't think it was necessary. All the ingredients were already on the table. SECONDS(), DATETIME(), and awareness of the midnight issue. I would hope that everybody here can take that information and come up with their own solution to any problems that might occur with their individual testing.
>
>Joe
>
>
>>This is a site of SERIOUS discussion. There is no place for joking.
>>
>>>Of course. I was mostly joking. If someone were concerned with subsecond timing, I don't think they'd be doing something that took very long (ie. something that would have to run for a while and that might span midnight). So if they saw that it took -86398 seconds, they would know it was too late and that they should go to bed and try again later.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can store the datetime() and the millisecond portion of seconds(), this eliminates any rollover issues.
>>>>
>>>>>Just don't span midnight.... ;~)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you need subsecond precision you can use seconds() in place of datetime() in Ed's code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would like to calculate processing time, which command can
>>>>>>>we use ? Thanks for your time