On 2 May 2016 at 19:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doing some more testing of the numeric code patched in [1] I noticed
>> another case where the result is inaccurate -- computing 0.12 ^
>> -2345.6 gives a very large number containing 2162 digits, but only the
>> first 2006 correct, while the last 156 digits are wrong.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how can you tell? Where do you get alternate
> output to compare against?
>
The easiest way is to use bc, although it's pretty slow for this kind of thing.
> Also, I wonder what we think the contract with the user is in cases
> like this.
My expectation is that the numeric computations should generally
produce results that are correct in all, or nearly all, digits
returned. This is commonly expressed in terms of ULP's --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place. An error of a
few ULP's may be OK, but I don't think hundreds of ULP's is OK.
Actually I think this particular issue is mostly of academic interest,
but we went to some effort to get accurate results in the previous
patch, and this is just closing a loophole to hopefully complete that
work.
Surely, if we were dealing with floating point numbers,
> nobody would expect a calculation like this to be accurate beyond the
> first n digits, where n is surely much less than 2006. I like the
> fact that numeric has a lot more precision than any built-in floating
> point type, but does it have to get every digit in front of the
> decimal point exactly right no matter how many there are?
>
I would say it should come close. Otherwise we're just returning a lot
of noise. Note that there is a limit to how many digits we will ever
return, so this is manageable.
> rhaas=# select tan(pi()::numeric/2), tan(pi()/2);
> tan | tan
> -----------------+----------------------
> 618986325617924 | 1.63312393531954e+16
> (1 row)
>
That doesn't prove anything, since we haven't implemented tan(numeric)
(and I don't plan to), so the above is actually
select tan((pi()::numeric/2)::float8), tan(pi()/2);
and it's not surprising that the 2 results are wildly different (and
infinitely far away from the correct answer). It's using tan(float8)
in both cases, just with slightly different float8 inputs. There's not
really any reason to expect particularly accurate results from float8
functions in cases like this.
Regards,
Dean
