From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems |
Date: | 2006-08-11 04:48:08 |
Message-ID: | 200608110448.k7B4m8f01279@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Have we made any progress on this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> > ... I think this just confirms that there is some kind of rounding (or
> > lack of) in interval_div. Kind of frustrating that it's not visible
> > in the result.
>
> I think the fundamental problem is that the float8 results of division
> are inaccurate, and yet we're assuming that we can (for instance) coerce
> them to integer and get exactly the right answer. For instance, in the
> '41 months'/10 example, I get month_remainder_days being computed as
>
> (gdb) p month_remainder
> $19 = 0.099999999999999645
> (gdb) s
> 2575 result->day += (int32) month_remainder_days;
> (gdb) p month_remainder_days
> $20 = 2.9999999999999893
>
> The only way we can really fix this is to be willing to round off
> the numbers, and I think the only principled way to do that is to
> settle on a specific target accuracy, probably 1 microsecond.
> Then the thing to do would be to scale up all the intermediate
> float results to microseconds and apply rint(). Something like
> (untested)
>
> month_remainder = rint(span->month * USECS_PER_MONTH / factor);
> day_remainder = rint(span->day * USECS_PER_DAY / factor);
> result->month = (int32) (month_remainder / USECS_PER_MONTH);
> result->day = (int32) (day_remainder / USECS_PER_DAY);
> month_remainder -= result->month * USECS_PER_MONTH;
> day_remainder -= result->day * USECS_PER_DAY;
>
> /*
> * Handle any fractional parts the same way as in interval_mul.
> */
>
> /* fractional months full days into days */
> month_remainder_days = month_remainder * DAYS_PER_MONTH;
> extra_days = (int32) (month_remainder_days / USECS_PER_DAY);
> result->day += extra_days;
> /* fractional months partial days into time */
> day_remainder += month_remainder_days - extra_days * USECS_PER_DAY;
>
> #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
> result->time = rint(span->time / factor + day_remainder);
> #else
> result->time = rint(span->time * 1.0e6 / factor + day_remainder) / 1.0e6;
> #endif
>
> This might need a few more rint() calls --- I'm assuming that float ops
> with exact integral inputs will be OK, which is an assumption used
> pretty widely in the datetime code, but ...
>
> Per the comment, if we do this here we probably want to make
> interval_mul work similarly.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-11 04:48:27 | Re: [GENERAL] different sort order in windows and linux version |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-08-11 04:36:39 | Re: [GENERAL] different sort order in windows and linux version |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-08-11 05:06:47 | Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-08-11 04:35:46 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: |