Re: BUG #17329: Aggregate Functions Precision Error - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

> You might be happier using the numeric type

Postgres defines aggregate functions for the numeric type only for 6 functions of 18. 

> Another possibility, for some aggregates, is to order the inputs

> in a way that minimizes error accumulation.

 

That is not always possible. As I understand this thread https://postgrespro.com/list/thread-id/1858486#CAKJS1f9L95TySOtBf0AgeZhiLf60BcrgXjOA4NtWptLGkNJFZw@mail.gmail.com, 

the parallel calculation for the aggregates was introduced, so the result depends on the order of float8_regr_combine functions.

BR,

Max

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 10:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Aggregate functions (described here
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-aggregate.html#FUNCTIONS-AGGREGATE-STATISTICS-TABLE)
> that are defined for double precision type suffer from loss of
> significance.

This is pretty much inherent in all uses of float arithmetic.
You might be happier using the numeric type (of course, that's
much slower).

Another possibility, for some aggregates, is to order the inputs
in a way that minimizes error accumulation.  For example,

select sum(f1 order by abs(f1)) from ...

I don't know offhand what the best such incantation is for covar_pop;
it might depend on the problem.

                        regards, tom lane