Allow inaccurate conversion from double to float in function JSONExtract beacuse the users want that #19960
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… the users want that
robot-clickhouse
added
the
pr-improvement
alexey-milovidov
changed the title
|
vitlibar
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2021
alexey-milovidov
deleted the
json-extract-inaccurate-conversion-from-double-to-float
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changelog category (leave one):
Changelog entry (a user-readable short description of the changes that goes to CHANGELOG.md):
If user calls
JSONExtractfunction withFloat32type requested, allow inaccurate conversion to the result type. For example the number0.1in JSON is double precision and is not representable in Float32, but the user still wants to get it. Previous versions return 0 for non-Nullable type and NULL for Nullable type to indicate that conversion is imprecise. The logic was 100% correct but it was surprising to users and leading to questions. This closes #13962.