I have a set of data with a precision of 16 digits, however this can range from very large numbers with all 16 digits to the left of the decimal point to very small number with all digits to right of the decimal point. (e.g. 1234567890123456.0 & 0.1234567890123456 ) I am trying to figure out the correct ("best") data type to store this data in. I need to store the exact values and not an approximations so float & real are not viable options. Numeric or decimal seem appropriate, however I am getting hung up on the most efficient precision & scale to set, it seems I must go with (32,16) to account for both extremes, but that seem inefficient as I am requesting twice the bit storage that I will ever use. Is there a better option?
Thank You for your assistance.
Related
I have a colleague of mine that keeps telling me not to use a double precision type for a PostgreSQL column, because I will eventually have rounding issues.
I am only aware of one case where a value gets stored with approximation and is when a number with "too many" decimal digits gets saved.
For example if I try to store the result of 1/3, then I will get an approximation.
On the other hand, he is claiming that the above is not the only case. He is saying that sometimes, even if the user is trying to store a number with a well defined number of digits such as 84.2 or 3.124 the value might get save as 84.19 or 3.1239 for the second case
This sounds very strange to me.
Could anyone give me an example/proof that the above can actually happen?
Your colleague is right: stay away from from float or double. But not so much because of rounding issue, but because those are approximate data types. What you put into that column is not necessarily what you get out.
If you care for precision and accurate values, use numeric.
A more detailed explanation about the pitfalls of approximate data types can be found here:
https://floating-point-gui.de/
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html
A number like:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000123456
is difficult to store without a large performance penalty with the available numeric types in postgres. This question addresses a similar problem, but I don't feel like it came to an acceptable resolution. Currently one of my colleagues landed on rounding numbers like this to 15 decimal places and just storing them as:
0.000000000000001
So that the double precision numeric type can be used which prevents the penalty associated with moving to a decimal numeric type. Numbers that are this small for my purposes are more or less functionally equivalent, because they are both very small (and mean more or less the same thing). However, we are graphing these results and when a large portion of the data set would be rounded like this it looks exceptionally stupid (flat line on the graph).
Because we are storing tens of thousands of these numbers and operating on them, the decimal numeric type is not a good option for us as the performance penalty is too large.
I am a scientist, and my natural inclination would just be to store these types of numbers in scientific notation, but it does't appear that postgres has this kind of functionality. I don't actually need all of the precision in the number, I just want to preserve 4 digits or so, so I don't even need the 15 digits that the float numeric type offers. What are the advantages and disadvantages of storing these numbers in two fields like this:
1.234 (real)
-40 (smallint)
where this is equivalent to 1.234*10^-40? This would allow for ~32000 leading decimals with only 2 bytes used to store them and 4 bytes to store the real value, for a total of maximally 6 bytes per number (gives me the exact number I want to store and takes less space than the existing solution which consumes 8 bytes). It also seems like sorting these numbers would be much improved as you'd need only sort on the smallint field first followed by the real field second.
You and/or your colleague seem to be confused about what numbers can be represented using the floating point formats.
A double precision (aka float) number can store at least 15 significant digits, in the range from about 1e-307 to 1e+308. You have to think of it as scientific notation. Remove all the zeroes and move that to the exponent. If whatever you have once in scientific notation has less than 15 digits and an exponent between -307 and +308, it can be stored as is.
That means that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000123456 can definitely be stored as a double precision, and you'll keep all the significant digits (123456). No need to round that to 0.000000000000001 or anything like that.
Floating point numbers have well-known issue of exact representation of decimal numbers (as decimal numbers in base 10 do not necessarily map to decimal numbers in base 2), but that's probably not an issue for you (it's an issue if you need to be able to do exact comparisons on such numbers).
What are the advantages and disadvantages of storing these numbers in
two fields like this
You'll have to manage 2 columns instead of one.
Roughly, what you'll be doing is saving space by storing lower-precision floats. If you only need 4 digits of precision, you can go further and save 2 more bytes by using smallint + smallint (1000-9999 + exponent). Using that format, you could cram the two smallint into one 32 bits int (exponent*2^16 + mantissa), that should work too.
That's assuming that you need to save storage space and/or need to go beyond the +/-308 digits exponent limit of the double precision float. If that's not the case, the standard format is fine.
I've a small number in a PostgreSQL table:
test=# CREATE TABLE test (r real);
CREATE TABLE
test=# INSERT INTO test VALUES (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000009);
INSERT 0 1
When I run the following query it returns the number as 8.96831e-44:
test=# SELECT * FROM test;
r
-------------
8.96831e-44
(1 row)
How can I show the value in psql in its decimal form (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000009) instead of the scientific notation? I'd be happy with 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000896831 too. Unfortunately I can't change the table and I don't really care about loss of precision.
(I've played with to_char for a while with no success.)
Real in Postgres is a floating point datatype, stored on 4 bytes, that is 32 bits.
Your value,
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000009
Can not be precisely represented in a 32bit IEEE754 floating point number. You can check the exact values in this calculator
You cold try and use double precision (64bits) to store it, according to the calculator, that seems to be an exact representation. NOT TRUE Patricia showed that it was just the calculator rounding the value, even though explicitly asking it not to... Double would mean a bit more precision, but still no exact value, as this number is not representable using finite number of binary digits. (Thanks, Patricia, a lesson learnt (again): don't believe what you see on the Intertubez)
Under normal circumstances, you should use a NUMERIC(precision, scale) format, that would store the number precisely to get back the correct value.
However, your value to store seems to have a scale larger than postgres allows (which seems to be 30) for exact decimal represenations. If you don't want to do calculations, just store them (which would not be a very common situation, I admit), you could try storing them as strings... (but this is ugly...)
EDIT
This to_char problem seems to be a known bug...
Quote:
My immediate reaction to that is that float8 values don't have 57 digits
of precision. If you are expecting that format string to do something
useful you should be applying it to a numeric column not a double
precision one.
It's possible that we can kluge things to make this particular case work
like you are expecting, but there are always going to be similar-looking
cases that can't work because the precision just isn't there.
In a quick look at the code, the reason you just get "0." is that it's
rounding off after 15 digits to ensure it doesn't print garbage. Maybe
it could be a bit smarter for cases where the value is very much smaller
than 1, but it wouldn't be a simple change.
(from here)
However, I find this not defendable. IMHO a double (IEEE754 64bit floating point to be exact) will always have ~15 significant decimal digits, if the value fits into the type...
Recommended reading:
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic
Postgres numeric types
BUG #6217: to_char() gives incorrect output for very small float values
I am having a problem with a simple division from two integers. I need it to be as accurate as possible, but for some reason the double type is working strange.
For example, if I execute the following code:
double res = (29970.0/1000.0);
The result is 29.969999999999999, when it should be 29.970.
Any idea why this is happening?
Thanks
Any idea why this is happening?
Because double representation is finite. For example, IEEE754 double-precision standard has 52 bits for fraction. So, not all the real numbers are covered. So, some of the values can not be ideally precise. In your case the result is 10^-15 away from the ideal.
I need it to be as accurate as possible
You shouldn't use doubles, then. In Java, for example, you would use BigDecimal instead (most languages provide a similar facility). double operations are intrinsically inaccurate to some degree. This is due to the internal representation of floating point numbers.
floating point numbers of type float and double are stored in binary format. Therefore numbers cant have precise decimal values. Those values are instead quantisized. If you hypothetically had only 2 bits fraction number type you would be able to represent only 2^-2 quantums: 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75, nothing between.
I need it to be as accurate as possible
There is no silver bullet, but if you want only basic arithmetic operations (which map ℚ to ℚ), and you REALLY want exact results, then your best bet is rational type composed of two unlimited integers (a.k.a. BigInteger, BigInt, etc.) - but even then, memory is not infinite, and you must think about it.
For the rest of the question, please read about fixed size floating-point numbers, there's plenty of good sources.
I have some inputs on my site representing floating point numbers with up to ten precision digits (in decimal). At some point, in the client side validation code, I need to compare a couple of those values to see if they are equal or not, and here, as you would expect, the intrinsics of IEEE754 make that simple check fails with things like (2.0000000000==2.0000000001) = true.
I may break the floating point number in two longs for each side of the dot, make each side a 64 bit long and do my comparisons manually, but it looks so ugly!
Any decent Javascript library to handle arbitrary (or at least guaranteed) precision float numbers on Javascript?
Thanks in advance!
PS: A GWT based solution has a ++
There is the GWT-MATH library at http://code.google.com/p/gwt-math/.
However, I warn you, it's a GWT jsni overlay of a java->javascript automated conversion of java.BigDecimal (actually the old com.ibm.math.BigDecimal).
It works, but speedy it is not. (Nor lean. It will pad on a good 70k into your project).
At my workplace, we are working on a fixed point simple decimal, but nothing worth releasing yet. :(
Use an arbitrary precision integer library such as silentmatt’s javascript-biginteger, which can store and calculate with integers of any arbitrary size.
Since you want ten decimal places, you’ll need to store the value n as n×10^10. For example, store 1 as 10000000000 (ten zeroes), 1.5 as 15000000000 (nine zeroes), etc. To display the value to the user, simply place a decimal point in front of the tenth-last character (and then cut off any trailing zeroes if you want).
Alternatively you could store a numerator and a denominator as bigintegers, which would then allow you arbitrarily precise fractional values (but beware – fractional values tend to get very big very quickly).