We are solving a numeric precision related bug. Our system collects some numbers and spits their sum. The issue is that the system does not retain the numeric precision, e.g. 300.7 + 400.9 = 701.599..., while expected result would be 701.6. The precision is supposed to adapt to the input values so we cannot just round results to fixed precision.
The problem is obvious, we use double for the values and addition accumulates the error from the binary representation of the decimal value.
The path of the data is following:
Now, I assume the optimal solution would be converting everything to a decimal format. Unsurprisingly, there is a pressure to go with the cheapest solution. It turns out that converting doubles to BigDecimal just before adding a couple of numbers works in case B in following example:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
public class Arithmetic {
public static void main(String[] args) {
double a = 0.3;
double b = -0.2;
// A
System.out.println(a + b);//0.09999999999999998
// B
System.out.println(BigDecimal.valueOf(a).add(BigDecimal.valueOf(b)));//0.1
// C
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(a).add(new BigDecimal(b)));//0.099999999999999977795539507496869191527366638183593750
}
}
More about this: Why do we need to convert the double into a string, before we can convert it into a BigDecimal? Unpredictability of the BigDecimal(double) constructor
I am worried that such a workaround would be a ticking bomb. First, I am not so sure that this arithmetic is bullet proof for all cases. Second, there is still some risk that someone in the future might implement some changes and change B to C, because this pitfall is far from obvious and even a unit test may fail to reveal the bug.
I would be willing to live with the second point but the question is: Would this workaround provide correct results? Could there be a case where somehow
Double.valueOf("12345.12345").toString().equals("12345.12345")
is false? Given that Double.toString, according to javadoc, prints just the digits needed to uniquely represent underlying double value, so when parsed again, it gives the same double value? Isn't that sufficient for this use case where I only need to add the numbers and print the sum with this magical Double.toString(Double d) method? To be clear, I do prefer what I consider the clean solution, using BigDecimal everywhere, but I am kind of short of arguments to sell it, by which I mean ideally an example where conversion to BigDecimal before addition fails to do the job described above.
If you can't avoid parsing into primitive double or store as double, you should convert to BigDecimal as early as possible.
double can't exactly represent decimal fractions. The value in double x = 7.3; will never be exactly 7.3, but something very very close to it, with a difference visible from the 16th digit or so on to the right (giving 50 decimal places or so). Don't be mislead by the fact that printing might give exactly "7.3", as printing already does some kind of rounding and doesn't show the number exactly.
If you do lots of computations with double numbers, the tiny differences will eventually sum up until they exceed your tolerance. So using doubles in computations where decimal fractions are needed, is indeed a ticking bomb.
[...] we expect values no longer than 10 digits total, 5 fraction digits.
I read that assertion to mean that all numbers you deal with, are to be exact multiples of 0.00001, without any further digits. You can convert doubles to such BigDecimals with
new BigDecimal.valueOf(Math.round(doubleVal * 100000), 5)
This will give you an exact representation of a number with 5 decimal fraction digits, the 5-fraction-digits one that's closest to the input doubleVal. This way you correct for the tiny differences between the doubleVal and the decimal number that you originally meant.
If you'd simply use BigDecimal.valueOf(double val), you'd go through the string representation of the double you're using, which can't guarantee that it's what you want. It depends on a rounding process inside the Double class which tries to represent the double-approximation of 7.3 (being maybe 7.30000000000000123456789123456789125) with the most plausible number of decimal digits. It happens to result in "7.3" (and, kudos to the developers, quite often matches the "expected" string) and not "7.300000000000001" or "7.3000000000000012" which both seem equally plausible to me.
That's why I recommend not to rely on that rounding, but to do the rounding yourself by decimal shifting 5 places, then rounding to the nearest long, and constructing a BigDecimal scaled back by 5 decimal places. This guarantees that you get an exact value with (at most) 5 fractional decimal places.
Then do your computations with the BigDecimals (using the appropriate MathContext for rounding, if necessary).
When you finally have to store the number as a double, use BigDecimal.doubleValue(). The resulting double will be close enough to the decimal that the above-mentioned conversion will surely give you the same BigDecimal that you had before (unless you have really huge numbers like 10 digits before the decimal point - the you're lost with double anyway).
P.S. Be sure to use BigDecimal only if decimal fractions are relevant to you - there were times when the British Shilling currency consisted of twelve Pence. Representing fractional Pounds as BigDecimal would give a disaster much worse than using doubles.