Show total rows/avg row size in human readable format about druid HOT 4 CLOSED

@FrankChen021 , the first column Total Rows denotes the total number of rows in the datasource, not the total size. Do you mean it should be displayed as 5 million, 63 billion, etc? I think the current approach of showing the exact total number of rows is better.

from druid.

Yes, i mean show the number as 5M, 63B.

from druid.

Those columns are human readable (that is what the ,s are for) the term you are looking for is "abbreviated".

There is a reason why I chose to show those column unabbreviated. Let me explain here and then if we can decide if it still applies.

The main issue with abbreviation is that it can make numbers that are very different visually appear very similar or even opposite in size. You can see it in the Total data size column in your screenshot. What is bigger 5.12 PB or 15.53 MB? what if you squint or take off your glasses (see blurry screenshot attached)? One way to solve this is to abbreviate the entire column to the same unit but that looses a lot of resolution on the small things.

The Total rows column is very special it can vary from 63 billion to 2 as it does in your screenshot. It is also common that people care about the exact number like if you are importing data from somewhere where you know you have 63,267,111,852 rows you want to see that 63,267,111,852 exactly made it into Druid. By leaving it unabbreviated it easily shows the relative size of the datasource even from afar (again see my blurred screenshot). Lastly it is just cool to see a big number.

The Avg row size is unabbreviated because it simply no likely to have a lot of range. Rows in Druid rarely exceed a couple of kilobytes in size. If your rows are getting close to megabytes you would very much want to know it very prominently.

from druid.

I think you're right, sometimes users might care about the exact number of rows. it's complex if we support both formats.
let me close this proposal.

from druid.