From: | "Gene Sokolov" <hook(at)aktrad(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.0 - Overflow bug in AVG( ) |
Date: | 1999-06-16 13:27:00 |
Message-ID: | 1ad801beb7fb$ea60a870$0d8cdac3@aktrad.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > [PostgreSQL 6.5.0 on i386-unknown-freebsd3.2, compiled by gcc 2.7.2.1]
> > test1=> select count(*), max("ID"), min("ID"), avg("ID") from
"ItemsBars";
> > count| max| min| avg
> > ------+-------+-----+----
> > 677719|3075717|61854|-251
> > (1 row)
> > Overflow, perhaps?
>
> Of course. These are integer fields? I've been considering changing
Yes, the fields are int4
> all accumulators (and results) for integer aggregate functions to
> float8, but have not done so yet. I was sort of waiting for a v7.0
> release, but am not sure why...
Float8 accumulator seems to be a good solution if AVG is limited to
int/float types. I wonder if it could produce system dependency in AVG due
to rounding errors. Some broader solution should be considered though if you
want AVG to work on numeric/decimal as well.
Gene Sokolov.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | José Soares | 1999-06-16 13:37:17 | decimal & numeric report bug |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-06-16 13:19:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres mailing lists |