A strange operation problem in SQL Server (-100/-100*10 = 0)












87
















  • If you execute SELECT -100/-100*10 the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT (-100/-100)*10 the result is 10.

  • If you execute SELECT -100/(-100*10) the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT 100/100*10 the result is 10.


BOL states:




When two operators in an expression have the same operator precedence level, they are evaluated left to right based on their position in the expression.




And



Level   Operators
1 ~ (Bitwise NOT)
2 * (Multiplication), / (Division), % (Modulus)
3 + (Positive), - (Negative), + (Addition), + (Concatenation), - (Subtraction), & (Bitwise AND), ^ (Bitwise Exclusive OR), | (Bitwise OR)


Is BOL wrong, or am I missing something? It seems the - is throwing the (expected) precedence off.










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    What's your question?

    – Sami
    Feb 4 at 9:45






  • 14





    Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

    – sepupic
    Feb 4 at 9:46






  • 5





    OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

    – Larnu
    Feb 4 at 10:24








  • 3





    SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

    – Panagiotis Kanavos
    Feb 4 at 10:25








  • 7





    A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 10:36


















87
















  • If you execute SELECT -100/-100*10 the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT (-100/-100)*10 the result is 10.

  • If you execute SELECT -100/(-100*10) the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT 100/100*10 the result is 10.


BOL states:




When two operators in an expression have the same operator precedence level, they are evaluated left to right based on their position in the expression.




And



Level   Operators
1 ~ (Bitwise NOT)
2 * (Multiplication), / (Division), % (Modulus)
3 + (Positive), - (Negative), + (Addition), + (Concatenation), - (Subtraction), & (Bitwise AND), ^ (Bitwise Exclusive OR), | (Bitwise OR)


Is BOL wrong, or am I missing something? It seems the - is throwing the (expected) precedence off.










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    What's your question?

    – Sami
    Feb 4 at 9:45






  • 14





    Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

    – sepupic
    Feb 4 at 9:46






  • 5





    OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

    – Larnu
    Feb 4 at 10:24








  • 3





    SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

    – Panagiotis Kanavos
    Feb 4 at 10:25








  • 7





    A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 10:36
















87












87








87


16







  • If you execute SELECT -100/-100*10 the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT (-100/-100)*10 the result is 10.

  • If you execute SELECT -100/(-100*10) the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT 100/100*10 the result is 10.


BOL states:




When two operators in an expression have the same operator precedence level, they are evaluated left to right based on their position in the expression.




And



Level   Operators
1 ~ (Bitwise NOT)
2 * (Multiplication), / (Division), % (Modulus)
3 + (Positive), - (Negative), + (Addition), + (Concatenation), - (Subtraction), & (Bitwise AND), ^ (Bitwise Exclusive OR), | (Bitwise OR)


Is BOL wrong, or am I missing something? It seems the - is throwing the (expected) precedence off.










share|improve this question

















  • If you execute SELECT -100/-100*10 the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT (-100/-100)*10 the result is 10.

  • If you execute SELECT -100/(-100*10) the result is 0.

  • If you execute SELECT 100/100*10 the result is 10.


BOL states:




When two operators in an expression have the same operator precedence level, they are evaluated left to right based on their position in the expression.




And



Level   Operators
1 ~ (Bitwise NOT)
2 * (Multiplication), / (Division), % (Modulus)
3 + (Positive), - (Negative), + (Addition), + (Concatenation), - (Subtraction), & (Bitwise AND), ^ (Bitwise Exclusive OR), | (Bitwise OR)


Is BOL wrong, or am I missing something? It seems the - is throwing the (expected) precedence off.







sql-server operator-precedence






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 4 at 10:30









marc_s

576k12911111258




576k12911111258










asked Feb 4 at 9:43









cuizizhecuizizhe

41436




41436








  • 7





    What's your question?

    – Sami
    Feb 4 at 9:45






  • 14





    Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

    – sepupic
    Feb 4 at 9:46






  • 5





    OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

    – Larnu
    Feb 4 at 10:24








  • 3





    SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

    – Panagiotis Kanavos
    Feb 4 at 10:25








  • 7





    A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 10:36
















  • 7





    What's your question?

    – Sami
    Feb 4 at 9:45






  • 14





    Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

    – sepupic
    Feb 4 at 9:46






  • 5





    OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

    – Larnu
    Feb 4 at 10:24








  • 3





    SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

    – Panagiotis Kanavos
    Feb 4 at 10:25








  • 7





    A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 10:36










7




7





What's your question?

– Sami
Feb 4 at 9:45





What's your question?

– Sami
Feb 4 at 9:45




14




14





Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

– sepupic
Feb 4 at 9:46





Why do you think you have to do with bits, you are working with integers. And integer/integer = integer. So -100/-1000 is 0

– sepupic
Feb 4 at 9:46




5




5





OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

– Larnu
Feb 4 at 10:24







OK, I do agree, that - does seem to be causing the flow to go "wrong". If you try -100/(-100)*10 you get the result 10. it seems that the / is being applied against to value - in the equation and then the equation 100*10 is being determined. I'm not sure this is an error with BOL, but more that SQL Server isn't behaving as expected. It might be worth raising an issue on sql-docs and seeing what their response is there; perhaps a note could be added to the documentation advising of the "feature".

– Larnu
Feb 4 at 10:24






3




3





SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

– Panagiotis Kanavos
Feb 4 at 10:25







SELECT -100/(-100)*10 also returns 10. It looks like - is treated as the - operator which should be applied only after 100*10 is calculated

– Panagiotis Kanavos
Feb 4 at 10:25






7




7





A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

– Jeroen Mostert
Feb 4 at 10:36







A / -B * C is A <div> <negate> B <multiply> C. Negate has lower precedence than multiply, per the docs, so the result is A / -(B * C). You can see this more clearly by using floating constants: 12e / -13e * 14e vs. 12e / (-13e) * 14e vs 12e / 13e * 14e.The reason this throws us off is because we generally expect unary minus to become part of the literal, or at least have very high precedence, but that's not how T-SQL works.

– Jeroen Mostert
Feb 4 at 10:36














3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















79














According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this:



-100 / -100 * 10


is evaluated as:



-(100 / -(100 * 10))


Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation has higher precedence than multiplication and division e.g. VB, JavaScript.






share|improve this answer





















  • 37





    Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

    – usr
    Feb 4 at 14:09








  • 14





    oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

    – phuclv
    Feb 4 at 15:22






  • 12





    The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

    – Barmar
    Feb 4 at 16:57






  • 7





    So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

    – Kevin
    Feb 4 at 17:47






  • 4





    And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

    – rexkogitans
    Feb 5 at 7:30





















28














BOL is correct. - has lower precedence than *, so



-A * B


is parsed as



-(A * B)


Multiplication being what it is, you don't typically notice this, except when mixing in the two other binary operators with equal precedence: / and % (and % is rarely used in compound expressions like this). So



C / -A * B


Is parsed as



C / -(A * B)


explaining the results. This is counter-intuitive because in most other languages, unary minus has higher precedence than * and /, but not in T-SQL, and this is documented correctly.



A nice (?) way to illustrate it:



SELECT -1073741824 * 2


produces an arithmetic overflow, because -(1073741824 * 2) produces 2147483648 as an intermediate, which does not fit in an INT, but



SELECT (-1073741824) * 2


produces the expected result -2147483648, which does.






share|improve this answer


























  • "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 18:19






  • 10





    @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 18:33






  • 3





    "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

    – Alchymist
    Feb 5 at 11:11



















9














Notice in the documentation that (perhaps counter-intuitively) the order of precedence for - (Negative) is third.



So you effectively get:



-(100/-(100*10)) = 0



If you place them into variables you won't see this happening, as there is no unary operation that occurs after the multiplication.



So here A and B are the same, whereas C, D, E show the result you are seeing (with E having the complete bracketing)



DECLARE @i1 int, @i2 int, @i3 int;

SELECT @i1 = -100,
@i2 = -100,
@i3 = 10;

SELECT @i1/@i2*@i3 [A],
-100/(-100)*10 [B],
-100/-100*10 [C],
-100/-(100*10) [D],
-(100/-(100*10)) [E];

A - 10
B - 10
C - 0
D - 0
E - 0





share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    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: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54513450%2fa-strange-operation-problem-in-sql-server-100-10010-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    79














    According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this:



    -100 / -100 * 10


    is evaluated as:



    -(100 / -(100 * 10))


    Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation has higher precedence than multiplication and division e.g. VB, JavaScript.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 37





      Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

      – usr
      Feb 4 at 14:09








    • 14





      oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

      – phuclv
      Feb 4 at 15:22






    • 12





      The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

      – Barmar
      Feb 4 at 16:57






    • 7





      So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

      – Kevin
      Feb 4 at 17:47






    • 4





      And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

      – rexkogitans
      Feb 5 at 7:30


















    79














    According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this:



    -100 / -100 * 10


    is evaluated as:



    -(100 / -(100 * 10))


    Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation has higher precedence than multiplication and division e.g. VB, JavaScript.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 37





      Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

      – usr
      Feb 4 at 14:09








    • 14





      oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

      – phuclv
      Feb 4 at 15:22






    • 12





      The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

      – Barmar
      Feb 4 at 16:57






    • 7





      So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

      – Kevin
      Feb 4 at 17:47






    • 4





      And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

      – rexkogitans
      Feb 5 at 7:30
















    79












    79








    79







    According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this:



    -100 / -100 * 10


    is evaluated as:



    -(100 / -(100 * 10))


    Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation has higher precedence than multiplication and division e.g. VB, JavaScript.






    share|improve this answer















    According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this:



    -100 / -100 * 10


    is evaluated as:



    -(100 / -(100 * 10))


    Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation has higher precedence than multiplication and division e.g. VB, JavaScript.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 5 at 12:55

























    answered Feb 4 at 11:02









    Salman ASalman A

    180k66339431




    180k66339431








    • 37





      Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

      – usr
      Feb 4 at 14:09








    • 14





      oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

      – phuclv
      Feb 4 at 15:22






    • 12





      The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

      – Barmar
      Feb 4 at 16:57






    • 7





      So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

      – Kevin
      Feb 4 at 17:47






    • 4





      And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

      – rexkogitans
      Feb 5 at 7:30
















    • 37





      Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

      – usr
      Feb 4 at 14:09








    • 14





      oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

      – phuclv
      Feb 4 at 15:22






    • 12





      The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

      – Barmar
      Feb 4 at 16:57






    • 7





      So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

      – Kevin
      Feb 4 at 17:47






    • 4





      And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

      – rexkogitans
      Feb 5 at 7:30










    37




    37





    Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

    – usr
    Feb 4 at 14:09







    Wow, another gem feature in T-SQL :) I guess I have to audit all of my code now to search for bugs.

    – usr
    Feb 4 at 14:09






    14




    14





    oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

    – phuclv
    Feb 4 at 15:22





    oh man. This is even worse than the various PHP ternary operator bugs bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61915. What sane people think that unary operators must have lower precedence than binary ones?

    – phuclv
    Feb 4 at 15:22




    12




    12





    The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

    – Barmar
    Feb 4 at 16:57





    The real difference may be whether - is considered an operator in -100. In some languages, it's part of the syntax of an integer.

    – Barmar
    Feb 4 at 16:57




    7




    7





    So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

    – Kevin
    Feb 4 at 17:47





    So it's a bug in their precedence of unary -.

    – Kevin
    Feb 4 at 17:47




    4




    4





    And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

    – rexkogitans
    Feb 5 at 7:30







    And the winner of counter-intuitive design is ...: Microsoft - once more

    – rexkogitans
    Feb 5 at 7:30















    28














    BOL is correct. - has lower precedence than *, so



    -A * B


    is parsed as



    -(A * B)


    Multiplication being what it is, you don't typically notice this, except when mixing in the two other binary operators with equal precedence: / and % (and % is rarely used in compound expressions like this). So



    C / -A * B


    Is parsed as



    C / -(A * B)


    explaining the results. This is counter-intuitive because in most other languages, unary minus has higher precedence than * and /, but not in T-SQL, and this is documented correctly.



    A nice (?) way to illustrate it:



    SELECT -1073741824 * 2


    produces an arithmetic overflow, because -(1073741824 * 2) produces 2147483648 as an intermediate, which does not fit in an INT, but



    SELECT (-1073741824) * 2


    produces the expected result -2147483648, which does.






    share|improve this answer


























    • "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

      – Acccumulation
      Feb 4 at 18:19






    • 10





      @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

      – Jeroen Mostert
      Feb 4 at 18:33






    • 3





      "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

      – Alchymist
      Feb 5 at 11:11
















    28














    BOL is correct. - has lower precedence than *, so



    -A * B


    is parsed as



    -(A * B)


    Multiplication being what it is, you don't typically notice this, except when mixing in the two other binary operators with equal precedence: / and % (and % is rarely used in compound expressions like this). So



    C / -A * B


    Is parsed as



    C / -(A * B)


    explaining the results. This is counter-intuitive because in most other languages, unary minus has higher precedence than * and /, but not in T-SQL, and this is documented correctly.



    A nice (?) way to illustrate it:



    SELECT -1073741824 * 2


    produces an arithmetic overflow, because -(1073741824 * 2) produces 2147483648 as an intermediate, which does not fit in an INT, but



    SELECT (-1073741824) * 2


    produces the expected result -2147483648, which does.






    share|improve this answer


























    • "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

      – Acccumulation
      Feb 4 at 18:19






    • 10





      @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

      – Jeroen Mostert
      Feb 4 at 18:33






    • 3





      "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

      – Alchymist
      Feb 5 at 11:11














    28












    28








    28







    BOL is correct. - has lower precedence than *, so



    -A * B


    is parsed as



    -(A * B)


    Multiplication being what it is, you don't typically notice this, except when mixing in the two other binary operators with equal precedence: / and % (and % is rarely used in compound expressions like this). So



    C / -A * B


    Is parsed as



    C / -(A * B)


    explaining the results. This is counter-intuitive because in most other languages, unary minus has higher precedence than * and /, but not in T-SQL, and this is documented correctly.



    A nice (?) way to illustrate it:



    SELECT -1073741824 * 2


    produces an arithmetic overflow, because -(1073741824 * 2) produces 2147483648 as an intermediate, which does not fit in an INT, but



    SELECT (-1073741824) * 2


    produces the expected result -2147483648, which does.






    share|improve this answer















    BOL is correct. - has lower precedence than *, so



    -A * B


    is parsed as



    -(A * B)


    Multiplication being what it is, you don't typically notice this, except when mixing in the two other binary operators with equal precedence: / and % (and % is rarely used in compound expressions like this). So



    C / -A * B


    Is parsed as



    C / -(A * B)


    explaining the results. This is counter-intuitive because in most other languages, unary minus has higher precedence than * and /, but not in T-SQL, and this is documented correctly.



    A nice (?) way to illustrate it:



    SELECT -1073741824 * 2


    produces an arithmetic overflow, because -(1073741824 * 2) produces 2147483648 as an intermediate, which does not fit in an INT, but



    SELECT (-1073741824) * 2


    produces the expected result -2147483648, which does.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 4 at 11:47

























    answered Feb 4 at 11:11









    Jeroen MostertJeroen Mostert

    18k2353




    18k2353













    • "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

      – Acccumulation
      Feb 4 at 18:19






    • 10





      @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

      – Jeroen Mostert
      Feb 4 at 18:33






    • 3





      "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

      – Alchymist
      Feb 5 at 11:11



















    • "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

      – Acccumulation
      Feb 4 at 18:19






    • 10





      @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

      – Jeroen Mostert
      Feb 4 at 18:33






    • 3





      "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

      – Alchymist
      Feb 5 at 11:11

















    "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 18:19





    "minus" is binary. Unary - is "negative". People who say things like "minus 10" when they mean "negative 10" are being imprecise.

    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 18:19




    10




    10





    @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 18:33





    @Acccumulation: the imprecision isn't mine. The - operator, when applied to a single operand, is called MINUS in SQL query plans. Its binary counterpart is called SUB. If you like, interpret "unary minus" as shorthand for "the unary operator signified by the minus sign" -- a syntactic rather than a semantic designation.

    – Jeroen Mostert
    Feb 4 at 18:33




    3




    3





    "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

    – Alchymist
    Feb 5 at 11:11





    "negative 10" is standard American usage (I believe) but it is not standard in the UK.

    – Alchymist
    Feb 5 at 11:11











    9














    Notice in the documentation that (perhaps counter-intuitively) the order of precedence for - (Negative) is third.



    So you effectively get:



    -(100/-(100*10)) = 0



    If you place them into variables you won't see this happening, as there is no unary operation that occurs after the multiplication.



    So here A and B are the same, whereas C, D, E show the result you are seeing (with E having the complete bracketing)



    DECLARE @i1 int, @i2 int, @i3 int;

    SELECT @i1 = -100,
    @i2 = -100,
    @i3 = 10;

    SELECT @i1/@i2*@i3 [A],
    -100/(-100)*10 [B],
    -100/-100*10 [C],
    -100/-(100*10) [D],
    -(100/-(100*10)) [E];

    A - 10
    B - 10
    C - 0
    D - 0
    E - 0





    share|improve this answer






























      9














      Notice in the documentation that (perhaps counter-intuitively) the order of precedence for - (Negative) is third.



      So you effectively get:



      -(100/-(100*10)) = 0



      If you place them into variables you won't see this happening, as there is no unary operation that occurs after the multiplication.



      So here A and B are the same, whereas C, D, E show the result you are seeing (with E having the complete bracketing)



      DECLARE @i1 int, @i2 int, @i3 int;

      SELECT @i1 = -100,
      @i2 = -100,
      @i3 = 10;

      SELECT @i1/@i2*@i3 [A],
      -100/(-100)*10 [B],
      -100/-100*10 [C],
      -100/-(100*10) [D],
      -(100/-(100*10)) [E];

      A - 10
      B - 10
      C - 0
      D - 0
      E - 0





      share|improve this answer




























        9












        9








        9







        Notice in the documentation that (perhaps counter-intuitively) the order of precedence for - (Negative) is third.



        So you effectively get:



        -(100/-(100*10)) = 0



        If you place them into variables you won't see this happening, as there is no unary operation that occurs after the multiplication.



        So here A and B are the same, whereas C, D, E show the result you are seeing (with E having the complete bracketing)



        DECLARE @i1 int, @i2 int, @i3 int;

        SELECT @i1 = -100,
        @i2 = -100,
        @i3 = 10;

        SELECT @i1/@i2*@i3 [A],
        -100/(-100)*10 [B],
        -100/-100*10 [C],
        -100/-(100*10) [D],
        -(100/-(100*10)) [E];

        A - 10
        B - 10
        C - 0
        D - 0
        E - 0





        share|improve this answer















        Notice in the documentation that (perhaps counter-intuitively) the order of precedence for - (Negative) is third.



        So you effectively get:



        -(100/-(100*10)) = 0



        If you place them into variables you won't see this happening, as there is no unary operation that occurs after the multiplication.



        So here A and B are the same, whereas C, D, E show the result you are seeing (with E having the complete bracketing)



        DECLARE @i1 int, @i2 int, @i3 int;

        SELECT @i1 = -100,
        @i2 = -100,
        @i3 = 10;

        SELECT @i1/@i2*@i3 [A],
        -100/(-100)*10 [B],
        -100/-100*10 [C],
        -100/-(100*10) [D],
        -(100/-(100*10)) [E];

        A - 10
        B - 10
        C - 0
        D - 0
        E - 0






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Feb 4 at 14:41









        Toby Speight

        16.7k134165




        16.7k134165










        answered Feb 4 at 11:24









        Jamie PollardJamie Pollard

        1,2371817




        1,2371817






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • 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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54513450%2fa-strange-operation-problem-in-sql-server-100-10010-0%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

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?