On 2/13/17 10:45 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
It is not true - please notice query execution time of this two queries:
I bet you'd get even less difference if you simply cast to float8
instead of adding 0.0. Same result, no floating point addition.
The expectation for SUM(float4) is that you want speed and are
prepared to cope with the consequences. It's easy enough to cast your
input to float8 if you want a wider accumulator, or to numeric if
you'd like more stable (not necessarily more accurate :-() results.
I do not think it's the database's job to make those choices for you.
From my point of your it is strange and wrong expectation.
I am choosing "float4" type for a column just because it is enough to
represent range of data I have and I need to minimize size of record.
In other words, you've decided to trade accuracy for performance...
But when I am calculating sum, I expect to receive more or less precise
result. Certainly I realize that even in case of using double it is
... but now you want to trade performance for accuracy? Why would you
expect the database to magically come to that conclusion?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
