Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow()

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow()
Date: 2015-11-14 00:16:29
Message-ID: CAEZATCVFk1zRrAuT-nf8+gLNaEBL52njzz4N6QmsaP6Sy=qoOw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13 November 2015 at 23:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One more thing: the approach you used in power_var() of doing a whole
> separate exp * ln(base) calculation to approximate the result weight
> seems mighty expensive, even if it is done at minimal precision.
> Couldn't we get a good-enough approximation using basically
> numericvar_to_double_no_overflow(exp) * estimate_ln_weight(base) ?
>

I can't see a way to make that work reliably. It would need to be
10^estimate_ln_weight(base) and the problem is that both exp and
ln_weight could be too big to fit in double variables, and become
HUGE_VAL, losing all precision.

An interesting example is the limit of (1+1/x)^x as x approaches
infinity which is e (the base of natural logarithms), so in that case
both the exponent and ln_weight could be arbitrarily big (well too big
for doubles anyway). For example (1+1/1.2e+500)^(1.2e500) =
2.7182818284...

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2015-11-14 00:19:01 Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow()
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2015-11-13 23:36:53 Re: check for interrupts in set_rtable_names