| From: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues |
| Date: | 2002-09-19 16:05:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20020919160539.GA18024@rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 06:00:37PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> What if he must display 9 digits and says the result is approximately 2.45678932
> would that be worse than 2.46000000 ?
Yup. Trailing zeros are not significant. That's why scientific notation is nice:
you don't fill in all those insignificant placeholders.
>
> For above calculation pg will in the future return 0.00000000000000000000 as an
> answer to 1.00000000000001*1000.0-1000.0 when used in my example context, while
> it currently returns 0.000000000010 ...
> You both are saying, that 0.00000000000000000000 is a better answer.
That's right. And correct, as well.
Ross
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 16:07:54 | Re: killing process question |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-09-19 16:00:37 | Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues |