Re: precision of numeric type

You get BigDecimal, not Double
regards
Haris Peco
On Sunday 27 October 2002 03:36 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am not sure.  Others may have a better answer, but the problem may be
> due to comparing a non-exact type like numberic to an inexact type like
> double.  You may find 7.3beta has this fixed because we did work on
> improving such casts in that release.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> w.winter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > on testing our auto-configuration persistence framework ACP against
> > PostgreSQL we found the following problem:
> >
> > I have a table with a column of type numeric(48,10). The PostgreSQL docs
> > say: "The type numeric can store numbers of practically unlimited size
> > and precision, while being able to store all numbers and carry out all
> > calculations exactly."
> >
> > I store the Double value 1212121234.5634349876 with a
> > PreparedStatement.setDouble()
> >
> > I make a PreparedStatement with SELECT FROM TESTTABLE WHERE TESTCOLUMN=?
> > and set the Parameter with
> > stmt.setDouble(1, new Double(1212121234.56343498));
> >
> > The row will be found!
> >
> > The same happens when I do
> > stmt.setString(1, String.valueOf(new Double(1212121234.56343498)));
> >
> > and if I do
> > stmt.setDouble(1, new Double(1212121234.5634349));
> > an error is produced : Unable to identify an operator '=' for types
> > 'numeric' and 'double precision'
> >
> > it seems to me, the behaviour with numeric datatypes is not consistent.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ___________________
> > Dr. Wolfgang Winter
> > LogiTags Systems
> > www.logitags.com
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> >     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)