I'm trying to nail down the range of NUMBER values. The range I come

up with, based on a maximum precision of 38 and a scale range of -84

through 127, is illustrated by the following code block:

DECLARE

min_num NUMBER(38,127);

max_num NUMBER(38,-84);

BEGIN

/* 127 is largest scale, so begin with 1 and move

decimal point 127 places to the left. Easy. */

min_num := 1E-127;

DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(min_num);

/* -84 is smallest scale value. Add 37 to normalize

the scientific-notation, and we get E+121. */

max_num := 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999E+121;

DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(max_num);

END;

/

The results I get are:

1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000E-127

9.999999999999999999999999999999999999900000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000E+121

These results make sense to me. What troubles me is that the SQL

Reference gives 1.0E-130 as the low end (versus my 1.0E-127). The SQL

reference also gives "up to, but not including 1.0E126" as the high

end. It would seem that the manual is incorrect. On the other hand,

perhaps there is some subtle point that I am just not seeing. So I'm

throwing my question, and my code out to see whether anyone can spot a

flaw in my thinking here.

Best regards,

Jonathan Gennick --- Brighten the corner where you are

http://Gennick.com * 906.387.1698 * mailto:jonathan@gennick.com

Join the Oracle-article list and receive one

article on Oracle technologies per month by

email. To join, visit http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/oracle-article,

or send email to Oracle-article-request_at_gennick.com and

include the word "subscribe" in either the subject or body.