Non-deterministic sum of floats The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAre RANK() and DENSE_RANK() deterministic or non-deterministic?SQL join with multiple columns as FK to same list tableMySQL returns floats roundedSelect data divided in groups evenly distributed by valueRound-tripping column datatype causes size of table to growCan I make this multiple join query faster?A Dynamic where clause in MS SQL ServerPerformance gap between WHERE IN (1,2,3,4) vs IN (select * from STRING_SPLIT('1,2,3,4',','))How to move a Daily Partition to a Monthly Partitioned TableTrying to insert only unique items into one table and then create a many to many relationship in a join table only if that join does not exist

Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?

Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"?

How to get the last not-null value in an ordered column of a huge table?

Help/tips for a first time writer?

How to find image of a complex function with given constraints?

Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?

what's the use of '% to gdp' type of variables?

If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?

Why the last AS PATH item always is `I` or `?`?

What was Carter Burkes job for "the company" in "Aliens"?

What is the difference between Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics

Traduction de « Life is a roller coaster »

Regression vs Random Forest - Combination of features

How many extra stops do monopods offer for tele photographs?

Is "three point ish" an acceptable use of ish?

In the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" videogame, what potion is used to sabotage Umbridge's speakers?

What day is it again?

Why doesn't UK go for the same deal Japan has with EU to resolve Brexit?

What flight has the highest ratio of timezone difference to flight time?

Defamation due to breach of confidentiality

What does "shotgun unity" refer to here in this sentence?

Easy to read palindrome checker

Can I calculate next year's exemptions based on this year's refund/amount owed?

Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers



Non-deterministic sum of floats



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAre RANK() and DENSE_RANK() deterministic or non-deterministic?SQL join with multiple columns as FK to same list tableMySQL returns floats roundedSelect data divided in groups evenly distributed by valueRound-tripping column datatype causes size of table to growCan I make this multiple join query faster?A Dynamic where clause in MS SQL ServerPerformance gap between WHERE IN (1,2,3,4) vs IN (select * from STRING_SPLIT('1,2,3,4',','))How to move a Daily Partition to a Monthly Partitioned TableTrying to insert only unique items into one table and then create a many to many relationship in a join table only if that join does not exist










9















Let me state the obvious fist: I completely understand that floating point types cannot accurately represent decimal values. This is not about that! Nevertheless, floating point calculations are supposed to be deterministic.



Now that this is out of the way, let me show you the curious case I observed today. I have a list of floating-point values, and I want to sum them up:



CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

SELECT STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15) FROM #someFloats;

DROP TABLE #someFloats;

-- yields:
-- 13.600000000000001


So far, so good - no surprises here. We all know that 1.2 can't be represented exactly in binary representation, so the "imprecise" result is expected.



Now the following strange thing happens when I left-join another table:



CREATE TABLE #A (a int);
INSERT INTO #A (a) VALUES (1), (2);

CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

SELECT #A.a, STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15)
FROM #someFloats LEFT JOIN #A ON 1 = 1
GROUP BY #A.a;

DROP TABLE #someFloats;
DROP TABLE #A;

-- yields
-- 1 13.600000000000001
-- 2 13.599999999999998


(sql fiddle, you can also see the execution plan there)



I have the same sum over the same values, but a different floating-point error. If I add more rows to table #A, we can see that the value alternates between those two values. I was only able to reproduce this issue with a LEFT JOIN; INNER JOIN works as expected here.



This is inconvenient, because it means that a DISTINCT, GROUP BY or PIVOT sees them as different values (which is actually how we discovered this issue).



The obvious solution is to round the value, but I'm curious: Is there a logical explanation for this behavior?










share|improve this question


























    9















    Let me state the obvious fist: I completely understand that floating point types cannot accurately represent decimal values. This is not about that! Nevertheless, floating point calculations are supposed to be deterministic.



    Now that this is out of the way, let me show you the curious case I observed today. I have a list of floating-point values, and I want to sum them up:



    CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
    INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

    SELECT STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15) FROM #someFloats;

    DROP TABLE #someFloats;

    -- yields:
    -- 13.600000000000001


    So far, so good - no surprises here. We all know that 1.2 can't be represented exactly in binary representation, so the "imprecise" result is expected.



    Now the following strange thing happens when I left-join another table:



    CREATE TABLE #A (a int);
    INSERT INTO #A (a) VALUES (1), (2);

    CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
    INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

    SELECT #A.a, STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15)
    FROM #someFloats LEFT JOIN #A ON 1 = 1
    GROUP BY #A.a;

    DROP TABLE #someFloats;
    DROP TABLE #A;

    -- yields
    -- 1 13.600000000000001
    -- 2 13.599999999999998


    (sql fiddle, you can also see the execution plan there)



    I have the same sum over the same values, but a different floating-point error. If I add more rows to table #A, we can see that the value alternates between those two values. I was only able to reproduce this issue with a LEFT JOIN; INNER JOIN works as expected here.



    This is inconvenient, because it means that a DISTINCT, GROUP BY or PIVOT sees them as different values (which is actually how we discovered this issue).



    The obvious solution is to round the value, but I'm curious: Is there a logical explanation for this behavior?










    share|improve this question
























      9












      9








      9


      1






      Let me state the obvious fist: I completely understand that floating point types cannot accurately represent decimal values. This is not about that! Nevertheless, floating point calculations are supposed to be deterministic.



      Now that this is out of the way, let me show you the curious case I observed today. I have a list of floating-point values, and I want to sum them up:



      CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
      INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

      SELECT STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15) FROM #someFloats;

      DROP TABLE #someFloats;

      -- yields:
      -- 13.600000000000001


      So far, so good - no surprises here. We all know that 1.2 can't be represented exactly in binary representation, so the "imprecise" result is expected.



      Now the following strange thing happens when I left-join another table:



      CREATE TABLE #A (a int);
      INSERT INTO #A (a) VALUES (1), (2);

      CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
      INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

      SELECT #A.a, STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15)
      FROM #someFloats LEFT JOIN #A ON 1 = 1
      GROUP BY #A.a;

      DROP TABLE #someFloats;
      DROP TABLE #A;

      -- yields
      -- 1 13.600000000000001
      -- 2 13.599999999999998


      (sql fiddle, you can also see the execution plan there)



      I have the same sum over the same values, but a different floating-point error. If I add more rows to table #A, we can see that the value alternates between those two values. I was only able to reproduce this issue with a LEFT JOIN; INNER JOIN works as expected here.



      This is inconvenient, because it means that a DISTINCT, GROUP BY or PIVOT sees them as different values (which is actually how we discovered this issue).



      The obvious solution is to round the value, but I'm curious: Is there a logical explanation for this behavior?










      share|improve this question














      Let me state the obvious fist: I completely understand that floating point types cannot accurately represent decimal values. This is not about that! Nevertheless, floating point calculations are supposed to be deterministic.



      Now that this is out of the way, let me show you the curious case I observed today. I have a list of floating-point values, and I want to sum them up:



      CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
      INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

      SELECT STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15) FROM #someFloats;

      DROP TABLE #someFloats;

      -- yields:
      -- 13.600000000000001


      So far, so good - no surprises here. We all know that 1.2 can't be represented exactly in binary representation, so the "imprecise" result is expected.



      Now the following strange thing happens when I left-join another table:



      CREATE TABLE #A (a int);
      INSERT INTO #A (a) VALUES (1), (2);

      CREATE TABLE #someFloats (val float);
      INSERT INTO #someFloats (val) VALUES (1), (1), (1.2), (1.2), (1.2), (3), (5);

      SELECT #A.a, STR(SUM(#someFloats.val), 30, 15)
      FROM #someFloats LEFT JOIN #A ON 1 = 1
      GROUP BY #A.a;

      DROP TABLE #someFloats;
      DROP TABLE #A;

      -- yields
      -- 1 13.600000000000001
      -- 2 13.599999999999998


      (sql fiddle, you can also see the execution plan there)



      I have the same sum over the same values, but a different floating-point error. If I add more rows to table #A, we can see that the value alternates between those two values. I was only able to reproduce this issue with a LEFT JOIN; INNER JOIN works as expected here.



      This is inconvenient, because it means that a DISTINCT, GROUP BY or PIVOT sees them as different values (which is actually how we discovered this issue).



      The obvious solution is to round the value, but I'm curious: Is there a logical explanation for this behavior?







      sql-server floating-point






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      HeinziHeinzi

      1,3721532




      1,3721532




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10














          Actually, the link you're referring to does not say that floating point arithmetic calculations are always deterministic. In fact, in one of the answers it's mentioned that addition is not associative (meaning (a + b) + c does not necessarily equal a + (b + c)), which is also said in this answer.



          If stream aggregation happens to process rows of each group in different order, this could explain the behaviour you observe.






          share|improve this answer























          • Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday











          • No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday












          • Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "182"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f233513%2fnon-deterministic-sum-of-floats%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          10














          Actually, the link you're referring to does not say that floating point arithmetic calculations are always deterministic. In fact, in one of the answers it's mentioned that addition is not associative (meaning (a + b) + c does not necessarily equal a + (b + c)), which is also said in this answer.



          If stream aggregation happens to process rows of each group in different order, this could explain the behaviour you observe.






          share|improve this answer























          • Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday











          • No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday












          • Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday















          10














          Actually, the link you're referring to does not say that floating point arithmetic calculations are always deterministic. In fact, in one of the answers it's mentioned that addition is not associative (meaning (a + b) + c does not necessarily equal a + (b + c)), which is also said in this answer.



          If stream aggregation happens to process rows of each group in different order, this could explain the behaviour you observe.






          share|improve this answer























          • Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday











          • No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday












          • Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday













          10












          10








          10







          Actually, the link you're referring to does not say that floating point arithmetic calculations are always deterministic. In fact, in one of the answers it's mentioned that addition is not associative (meaning (a + b) + c does not necessarily equal a + (b + c)), which is also said in this answer.



          If stream aggregation happens to process rows of each group in different order, this could explain the behaviour you observe.






          share|improve this answer













          Actually, the link you're referring to does not say that floating point arithmetic calculations are always deterministic. In fact, in one of the answers it's mentioned that addition is not associative (meaning (a + b) + c does not necessarily equal a + (b + c)), which is also said in this answer.



          If stream aggregation happens to process rows of each group in different order, this could explain the behaviour you observe.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          mustacciomustaccio

          10k72239




          10k72239












          • Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday











          • No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday












          • Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday

















          • Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday











          • No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday











          • Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

            – mustaccio
            yesterday












          • Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

            – Mooing Duck
            yesterday
















          Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday





          Associativity has no relation to determinism, so that bit is misleading.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday













          Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

          – mustaccio
          yesterday





          Non-associativity of floating point addition leads to non-deterministic behaviour of the SQL Server aggregate function SUM(), would you agree @MooingDuck?

          – mustaccio
          yesterday













          No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday





          No? Integer Division is a clear counterexample. It is non-associative, but entirely deterministic. Likewise, floating point division should be non-associative and still deterministic. From that, we conclude it's reasonable for addition to be non-associative and still deterministic. That being said, if the order of additions isn't deterministic, then the result will likewise not be deterministic, so your first and last sentence are still correct regardless.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday













          Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

          – mustaccio
          yesterday






          Integer division is a counterexample for the SQL Server SUM() over floating point arguments, how exactly?

          – mustaccio
          yesterday














          Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday





          Integer division is non-associative and deterministic. Therefore, arithmetic operations associativity is not related to determinism. Therefore any non-associativity of SUM() must be irrelevant toward it's determinism. I agree that SUM appears to be non deterministic, but you should remove mentions of associativity, since that's unrelated.

          – Mooing Duck
          yesterday

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f233513%2fnon-deterministic-sum-of-floats%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Romeo and Juliet ContentsCharactersSynopsisSourcesDate and textThemes and motifsCriticism and interpretationLegacyScene by sceneSee alsoNotes and referencesSourcesExternal linksNavigation menu"Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–"10.2307/28710160037-3222287101610.1093/res/II.5.31910.2307/45967845967810.2307/2869925286992510.1525/jams.1982.35.3.03a00050"Dada Masilo: South African dancer who breaks the rules"10.1093/res/os-XV.57.1610.2307/28680942868094"Sweet Sorrow: Mann-Korman's Romeo and Juliet Closes Sept. 5 at MN's Ordway"the original10.2307/45957745957710.1017/CCOL0521570476.009"Ram Leela box office collections hit massive Rs 100 crore, pulverises prediction"Archived"Broadway Revival of Romeo and Juliet, Starring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad, Will Close Dec. 8"Archived10.1075/jhp.7.1.04hon"Wherefore art thou, Romeo? To make us laugh at Navy Pier"the original10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006772"Ram-leela Review Roundup: Critics Hail Film as Best Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet"Archived10.2307/31946310047-77293194631"Romeo and Juliet get Twitter treatment""Juliet's Nurse by Lois Leveen""Romeo and Juliet: Orlando Bloom's Broadway Debut Released in Theaters for Valentine's Day"Archived"Romeo and Juliet Has No Balcony"10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O00778110.2307/2867423286742310.1076/enst.82.2.115.959510.1080/00138380601042675"A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology""Juliet of the Five O'Clock Shadow, and Other Wonders"10.2307/33912430027-4321339124310.2307/28487440038-7134284874410.2307/29123140149-661129123144728341M"Weekender Guide: Shakespeare on The Drive""balcony"UK public library membership"romeo"UK public library membership10.1017/CCOL9780521844291"Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture"10.2307/25379071533-86140377-919X2537907"Capulets and Montagues: UK exam board admit mixing names up in Romeo and Juliet paper"Istoria Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti2027/mdp.390150822329610820-750X"GCSE exam error: Board accidentally rewrites Shakespeare"10.2307/29176390149-66112917639"Exam board apologises after error in English GCSE paper which confused characters in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet""From Mariotto and Ganozza to Romeo and Guilietta: Metamorphoses of a Renaissance Tale"10.2307/37323537323510.2307/2867455286745510.2307/28678912867891"10 Questions for Taylor Swift"10.2307/28680922868092"Haymarket Theatre""The Zeffirelli Way: Revealing Talk by Florentine Director""Michael Smuin: 1938-2007 / Prolific dance director had showy career"The Life and Art of Edwin BoothRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietEasy Read Romeo and JulietRomeo and Julieteeecb12003684p(data)4099369-3n8211610759dbe00d-a9e2-41a3-b2c1-977dd692899302814385X313670221313670221

          Creating closest line along the point''s azimuth using PostgreSQL Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Drawing line between points at specific distance in PostGIS?How to efficiently find the closest point over the dateline?How to find the nearest point by using PostGIS function?PostGIS nearest point with LATERAL JOIN in PostgreSQL 9.3+Creating a table and inserting selected streets using plpgsql functionsCreating a table that stores Distances and other columnSaving select query results (year wise) from PostgreSQL/PostGIS to text filesWhat is the information behind this geometry?How to give start and end vertex ids dynamically in pgr_dijkstra?Point to Polygon nearest distance DS_distance is not using geography index & knn <-> or <#> does not give result in orderLine to point conversion with start point and end point detection?

          Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given