douduikai0562 2018-10-11 02:12
浏览 70



func MakeTimestamp() int64 {
    return time.Now().UTC().UnixNano() / int64(time.Nanosecond)

This will create something like 1539222678608597000

I'm storing this data on mongodb and I will eventually use something like:

db.getCollection('xxxxx').find({ "timestamp":{$lte: 1539194688262205259, $gte: 1539176688262205057} },{"venue": 1},{"product":0})

  • 写回答

1条回答 默认 最新

  • dsfdsf8888 2018-10-11 03:56

    No, timestamps are not monotonic. They are subject to clock synchronization by the OS and can skip forward and backward.

    That's why Go 1.9 added the monotonic part to time.Time. You can now always reliably subtract two time.Time values that have been obtained with time.Now(), but any formatting will discard the monotonic part.

    Timestamps are therefore not suitable for robust chronological ordering, but in many practical cases they are "good enough". You have to decide for yourself if it works for you, given the occasional inaccuracies. (Never use them in software that runs on laptops and other mobile devices. Standby modes can cause all kinds of weird clock issues, like time jumping several hours into the future.)

    本回答被题主选为最佳回答 , 对您是否有帮助呢?



  • ¥15 微信公众号如何开发网页
  • ¥15 h3.6m 人类行为预测论文复现
  • ¥50 wordpress项目注册报失败刷新后其实是成功状态,请求排查原因
  • ¥20 linxu服务器僵尸进程不释放,代码如何修改?
  • ¥15 pycharm激活不成功
  • ¥40 如果update 一个列名为参数的value
  • ¥15 基于51单片机的水位检测系统设计中LCD1602一直不显示
  • ¥15 OCS2安装出现问题,请大家给点意见
  • ¥15 ros小车启动launch文件报错
  • ¥15 vs2015到期想登陆但是登陆不上