Re: Fixed Point Arithmetic
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:17:02 GMT
Message-ID: <yZ8Ph.17330$PV3.179245_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Thanks. I really liked Oracle's Number (X,2) when I first saw it. And I
> don't really care if the arithmetic is a little slow, as long as it's right.
>
> If you're doing some heavy duty arithmetic, like interplanetary trajectory
> calculations, don't use the facilities of a DBMS. And learn what you're
> doing before doing it.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:17:02 GMT
Message-ID: <yZ8Ph.17330$PV3.179245_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ocis.net> wrote in message
> news:58rn03pspoga5r87b0v632b4tmug00gq7f_at_4ax.com...
>
>>"David Cressey" <cressey73_at_verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>>Are fixed point numbers a useful from for DBMSes to support? >> >> Of course, since they often deal with such numbers. Currency >>amounts are almost certainly the most common example.
>
> Thanks. I really liked Oracle's Number (X,2) when I first saw it. And I
> don't really care if the arithmetic is a little slow, as long as it's right.
>
> If you're doing some heavy duty arithmetic, like interplanetary trajectory
> calculations, don't use the facilities of a DBMS. And learn what you're
> doing before doing it.
Why not? It seems to me that the data for a large number of satellites is data one needs to manage, and even our little solar system has thousands of potentially significant satellites. Received on Fri Mar 30 2007 - 16:17:02 CEST