Re: wip: functions median and percentile
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-10-11T14:29:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> It was pointed out upthread that while median isn't presently >>> in the standard, Oracle defines it in terms of percentile_cont(0.5) >>> which *is* in the standard. What I read in SQL:2008 is that >>> percentile_cont is defined for all numeric types (returning >>> approximate numeric with implementation-defined precision), >>> and for interval (returning interval), and not for any other >>> input type. So it appears to me that what we ought to support >>> is >>> median(float8) returns float8 >>> median(interval) returns interval >>> and nothing else --- we can rely on implicit casting to convert >>> any other numeric input type to float8. > >> Isn't there a possibility of a precision loss if numeric gets cast to >> float8? > > So? The standard says "implementation-defined precision". We can > define it as giving results that are good to float8. I find it hard to > imagine an application for median() where that's not good enough; > and what's more, the difference in comparison speed between float8 and > numeric would render median() on numeric pretty useless anyway. I suppose for most applications it won't matter; I just hate losing precision, and have a deep skepticism of floats, as we've discussed previously. :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company