Re: Numeric x^y for negative x

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Numeric x^y for negative x
Date: 2021-09-13 18:29:13
Message-ID: CAEZATCXARqKNk57P+00v9RnpOhL13s04RmBHNrY9sTRv_Vev1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 17:51, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> I came here just to opine that there should be a comment about there not
> being a clamp to the maximum scale. For example, log_var says "Set the
> scales .. so that they each have more digits ..." which seems clear
> enough; I think the new comment is a bit on the short side.
>

OK, that's a fair point. Updated version attached.

> I couldn't get bc (version 1.07.1) to output the result; it says
>
> Runtime warning (func=(main), adr=47): non-zero scale in exponent
> Runtime error (func=(main), adr=47): exponent too large in raise
>

Ah yes, bc's "^" operator is a bit limited. It doesn't support
fractional powers for example, and evidently doesn't like powers that
large. I'm so used to not using it that I didn't notice - I always
just use exp() and ln() in bc to compute powers:

scale=2000
e(l(1 - 1.500012345678*10^-1000) * 1.45*10^1003) * 10^1000

Regards,
Dean

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-numeric-power-precision-loss-v2.patch text/x-patch 1.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-09-13 18:49:16 Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-09-13 18:28:55 Re: PG Docs - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION option list order