From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Weighted Stats |
Date: | 2016-03-19 01:12:12 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1y45wFL72-HkFo9SDR=Gont9qxR3=H+JzuH7=ok=PQb7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | Postg스포츠 토토SQL |
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:36 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Please find attached a patch that uses the float8 version to cover the
> numeric types.
Is there a well-defined meaning for having a negative weight? If no,
should it be disallowed?
I don't know what I was expecting, but not this:
select weighted_avg(x,10000000-2*x) from generate_series(1,10000000) f(x);
weighted_avg
------------------
16666671666717.1
Also, I think it might not give the correct answer even without
negative weights:
create table foo as select floor(random()*10000)::int val from
generate_series(1,10000000);
create table foo2 as select val, count(*) from foo group by val;
Shouldn't these then give the same result:
select stddev_samp(val) from foo;
stddev_samp
-------------------
2887.054977297105
select weighted_stddev_samp(val,count) from foo2;
weighted_stddev_samp
----------------------
2887.19919651336
The 5th digit seems too early to be seeing round-off error.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-19 01:42:42 | incorrect docs for pgbench / skipped transactions |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-03-19 00:52:10 | Re: Parallel Aggregate |