Moving the decimal place in a double

By
This is taken from a popular answer to the question Moving decimal places over in a double

Question

So I have a double set to equal 1234, I want to move a decimal place over to make it 12.34
So to do this I multiply .1 to 1234 two times, kinda like this
double x = 1234;
for(int i = 1; i <= 2; i++)
{
  x = x*.1;
}
System.out.println(x);
This will print the result, "12.340000000000002"
Is there a way, without simply formatting it to two decimal places, to have the double store 12.34 correctly?

Answer

If you use double or float, you should use rounding or expect to see some rounding errors. If you can't do this, use BigDecimal.
The problem you have is that 0.1 is not an exact representation, and by performing the calculation twice, you are compounding that error.
However, 100 can be represented accurately, so try:

double x = 1234;
x /= 100;
System.out.println(x);

which prints:
 
12.34

This works because Double.toString(d) performs a small amount of rounding on your behalf, but it is not much. If you are wondering what it might look like without rounding:

System.out.println(new BigDecimal(0.1));
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(x));

prints:

0.100000000000000005551115123125782702118158340454101562
12.339999999999999857891452847979962825775146484375

In short, rounding is unavoidable for sensible answers in floating point whether you are doing this explicitly or not.
Note: x / 100 and x * 0.01 are not exactly the same when it comes to rounding error. This is because the round error for the first expression depends on the values of x, whereas the 0.01 in the second has a fixed round error.

for(int i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
    double d1 = (double) i / 100;
    double d2 = i * 0.01;
    if (d1 != d2)
        System.out.println(d1 + " != "+d2);
}

prints

0.35 != 0.35000000000000003
0.41 != 0.41000000000000003
0.47 != 0.47000000000000003
0.57 != 0.5700000000000001
0.69 != 0.6900000000000001
0.7 != 0.7000000000000001
0.82 != 0.8200000000000001
0.83 != 0.8300000000000001
0.94 != 0.9400000000000001
0.95 != 0.9500000000000001
1.13 != 1.1300000000000001
1.14 != 1.1400000000000001
1.15 != 1.1500000000000001
1.38 != 1.3800000000000001
1.39 != 1.3900000000000001
1.4 != 1.4000000000000001
1.63 != 1.6300000000000001
1.64 != 1.6400000000000001
1.65 != 1.6500000000000001
1.66 != 1.6600000000000001
1.88 != 1.8800000000000001
1.89 != 1.8900000000000001
1.9 != 1.9000000000000001
1.91 != 1.9100000000000001

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Java is Very Fast, If You Don’t Create Many Objects

By
Image
  You still have to watch how many objects you create. This article looks at a benchmark passing events over TCP/IP at 4 billion events per minute using the net.openhft.chronicle.wire.channel package in Chronicle Wire and why we still avoid object allocations..  One of the key optimisations is creating almost no garbage. Allocation is a very cheap operation and collection of very short-lived objects is also very cheap. Does this really make a difference? What difference does one small object per event (44 bytes) make to the performance in a throughput test where GC pauses are amortised? While allocation is as efficient as possible, it doesn’t avoid the memory pressure on the L1/L2 caches of your CPUs and when many cores are busy, they are contending for memory in the shared L3 cache.  Results Benchmark on a Ryzen 5950X with Ubuntu 22.10. JVM Vendor, Version No objects Throughput, Average Latency* One object per event Throughput, Average Latency* Azul Zulu 1.8.0_322 60.6 M event/s, 528
Read more

System wide unique nanosecond timestamps

By
A Unique Identifier can be very useful for tracing. Those ids are even more useful when they contain a high-resolution timestamp.  Not only do they record the time of an event, but if unique can help trace events as they pass through the system. Such unique timestamps however can be expensive depending on how they are implemented.   This post explores a lightweight means of producing a unique, monotonically increasing system-wide nano-second resolution timestamp available in our open-source library. Uses for Unique Identifiers Unique identifiers can be useful to associate with a piece of information so that information can be referred to later unambiguously. This could be an event, a request, an order id, or a customer id. They can naturally be used as a primary key in a database or key/value store to retrieve that information later. One of the challenges of generating these identifiers is avoiding creating duplicates while not having an increasing cost.  You could record every identi
Read more

Comparing Approaches to Durability in Low Latency Messaging Queues

By
Image
  A significant feature of Chronicle Queue Enterprise is support for TCP replication across multiple servers to ensure the high availability of application infrastructure. I generally believe that replicating data to a secondary system is faster than syncing to disk, assuming the round trip network delay wasn’t high due to quality networks and co-located redundant servers. This is the first time I have benchmarked it with a realistic example. Little’s Law and Why Latency Matters In many cases, the assumption is that the latency won't be a problem as long as throughput is high enough. However, latency is often a key factor in why the throughput isn’t high enough. Little’s law states, “ the long-term average number  L  of customers in a  stationary  system is equal to the long-term average effective arrival rate  λ  multiplied by the average time  W  that a customer spends in the system”. In computer terminology, the level of concurrency or parallelism a system has to support must be
Read more