[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-7959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17372000#comment-17372000
 ] 

Nick Stenroos-Dam commented on DRILL-7959:
------------------------------------------

This improvement would most likely resolve: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-7957

> Minimum scale for decimal when precision overflows
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DRILL-7959
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-7959
>             Project: Apache Drill
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Query Planning & Optimization
>            Reporter: Nick Stenroos-Dam
>            Priority: Major
>
> Currently when doing math on decimals with a large precision Apache Drill 
> will set the scale to 0 in most cases, this is causing us quite a few issues.
> If we look at RDBMS they behave quite differently, and I would like to 
> emulate this behaviour a little bit more.
>  * Microsoft SQL Server, will always keep a minimum scale of 6
>  * MySQL, will always keep the largest possible scale, but limited to half 
> their total precision (30).
> I would suggest that a user setting is implemented: 
> "planner.fallback_decimal_scale_on_overflow"
> Then when the precision is overflowing and set to 38, the scale would be set 
> to the fallback_decimal_scale_on_overflow, or the requested scale if its less 
> then the fallback value.
> The default value of "fallback_decimal_scale_on_overflow" should either by 6 
> or 0. My personal preference would be 6 as its more user-friendly for new 
> users.
> Examples:
>  # CAST(x as DECIMAL(29,6)) * CAST(x as DECIMAL(29,6))
> Resulting data type in Drill 1.19: DECIMAL(38, 0)
> New data type with this change: DECIMAL(38, 6)
>  # CAST(x AS DECIMAL(29,2)) * CAST(x as DECIMAL(29, 2))
> Resulting data type in Drill 1.19: DECIMAL(38, 0)
> New data type with this change: DECIMAL(38, 4)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to