Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I think even the FLOAT case deserves some consideration. What's the
> worst-case drift?
Complete loss of all significant digits.
The case I was considering earlier of single-row windows could be made
safe (I think) if we apply the negative transition function first, before
incorporating the new row(s). Then for example if you've got float8 1e20
followed by 1, you compute (1e20 - 1e20) + 1 and get the right answer.
It's not so good with two-row windows though:
Table correct sum of negative-transition this + next value result 1e20 1e20
1e20+ 1 = 1e20 1 1 1e20 - 1e20 + 0 = 0 0
> In general, folks who do aggregate operations on
> FLOATs aren't expecting an exact answer, or one which is consistent
> beyond a certain number of significant digits.
Au contraire. People who know what they're doing expect the results
to be what an IEEE float arithmetic unit would produce for the given
calculation. They know how the roundoff error ought to behave, and they
will not thank us for doing a calculation that's not the one specified.
I will grant you that there are plenty of clueless people out there
who *don't* know this, but they shouldn't be using float arithmetic
anyway.
> And Dave is right: how many bug reports would we get about "NUMERIC is
> fast, but FLOAT is slow"?
I've said this before, but: we can make it arbitrarily fast if we don't
have to get the right answer. I'd rather get "it's slow" complaints
than "this is the wrong answer" complaints.
regards, tom lane