janssens-geert at telenet.be
Wed Aug 27 11:32:11 EDT 2014
On Saturday 23 August 2014 18:01:15 John Ralls wrote:
> So, having gotten test-lots and all of the other tests working* with
> libmpdecimal, I studied the Intel library for several days and
> couldn't figure out how to make it work, so I decided to try the GCC
> implementation, which offers a 128-bit IEEE 754 format that's fixed
> size. Since it doesn't ever call malloc, I thought it might prove
> faster, and indeed it is. I haven't finished integrating it -- the
> library doesn't provide formatted printing -- but it's far enough
> along that it passes all of the engine and backend tests. Some
> test-numeric, with NREPS increased to 20000 to get a reasonable
> execution time for profiling: master 9645ms
> mpDecimal 21410ms
> decNumber 12985ms
> master 16300ms
> mpDecimal 20203ms
> decNumber 19044ms
> The first shows the relative speed in more or less pure computation,
> the latter shows the overall impact on one of the longer-running
> tests that does a lot of other stuff.
Thanks for implementing this and running the tests. The topic was last touched before my
holidays so it took me a while to refresh my memory...
decNumber clearly performs better, although both implementations lag on our current
> I haven't investigated Christian's other suggestion of aggressive
> rounding to eliminate the overflow issue to make room for larger
> denominators, nor my original idea of replacing gnc_numeric with
> boost::rational atop a multi-precision class (either boost::mp or
Do you still have plans for either ?
I suppose aggressive rounding is orthogonal to the choice of data type. Christian's argument
that we should round as is expected in the financial world makes sense to me but that
argument does not imply any underlying data type.
How about the boost::rational option ?
> I have noticed that we're doing some dumb things with Scheme,
> like using double as an intermediate when converting from Scheme
> numbers to gnc_numeric (Scheme numbers are also rational, so the
> conversion should be direct) and representing gnc_numerics as a tuple
> (num, denom) instead of just using Scheme rationals.
Does this mean you see potential performance gains in this as we clean up the C<->Scheme
number conversions ?
> Neither will
> work for decimal floats, of course; the whole class will have to be
> wrapped so that computation takes place in C++.
Which means some performance drop again...
> Storage in SQL is
> also an issue,
>From the previous conversation I recall sqlite doesn't have a decimal type so we can't run
calculating queries on it directly.
But how about the other two: mysql and postsgresql. Is the decimal type you're using in your
tests directly compatible with the decimal data types in mysql and postgresql, or compatible
enough to convert automatically between them ?
> as is maintaining backward file compatibility.
> Another issue is equality: In order to get tests to pass I've had to
> implement a fuzzy comparison where both numbers are first rounded to
> the smaller number of decimal places -- 2 fewer if there are 12 or
> more -- and compared with two roundings, first truncation and second
> "bankers", and declared unequal only if they're unequal in both. I
> hate this, but it seems to be necessary to obtain equality when
> dealing with large divisors (as when computing prices or interest
> rates). I suspect that we'd have to do something similar if we pursue
> aggressive rounding to avoid overflows, but the only way to know for
> certain is to try.
So what's the current balance ?
I see following pros and cons of your tests so far:
- using a decimal type gives us more precision
- sqlite doesn't have a decimal data type, so as it currently stands we can't run calculations in
queries in that database type
- we loose backward/forward compatibility with earlier versions of GnuCash
- decNumber or mpDecimal are new dependencies
- their performance is currently less than the original gnc_numeric
- guile doesn't know of a decimal data type so we may need some conversion glue
- equality is fuzzy
Please add if I forgot arguments on either side.
Arguably many of the con arguments can be solved. That will effort however. And I consider
the first two more important than the others.
So do you think the benefits (I assume there will be more than the one I mentioned) will
outweigh the drawbacks ? Does the work that will go into it bring GnuCash enough value to
continue on this track ?
It's probably too early to tell for sure but I wanted to get your ideas based on what we have so
More information about the gnucash-devel