On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 21:24, <Shinya11.Kato@nttdata.com> wrote: > Hmmm, I didn't think YB was necessary, but what do others think?
For me personally, without consulting Wikipedia, I know that Petabyte comes after Terabyte and then I'm pretty sure it's Exabyte. After that, I'd need to check.
Assuming I'm not the only person who can't tell exactly how many bytes are in a Yottabyte, would it actually be a readability improvement if we started showing these units to people?
I hadn't really thought about that TBH; to me it seemed like an improvement, but I do see that others might not, and adding confusion is definitely not helpful. That said, it seems like having the code structured in a way that we can expand via adding an element to a table instead of the existing way it's written with nested if blocks is still a useful refactor, whatever we decide the cutoff units should be.
I'd say there might be some argument to implement as far as PB one day, maybe not that far out into the future, especially if we got something like built-in clustering. But I just don't think there's any need to go all out and take it all the way to YB. There's an above zero chance we'll break something of someones by doing this, so I think any changes here should be driven off an actual requirement.
I got motivated to do this due to some (granted synthetic) work/workloads, where I was seeing 6+digit TB numbers and thought it was ugly. Looked at the code and thought the refactor was the way to go, and just stuck all of the known units in.
I really think this change is more likely to upset someone than please someone.
I'd be interested to see reactions from people; to me, it seems a +1, but seems like -1, 0, +1 all valid opinions here; I'd expect more 0's and +1s, but I'm probably biased since I wrote this. :-)
