operation

问题 This question already has answers here : Java String Concatenation with + operator (5 answers) Closed 1 year ago . Consider the below code snippet - public class Student { public static void main(String args[]) { int a = 3; int b = 4; System.out.println(a + b +" "); System.out.println(a + b +" "+ a+b); System.out.println(""+ a+b); } } The output for the above snippet is coming as - 7 7 34 34 It is clear from the output that if we use String at first in the print statement then the integers

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59639285/how-to-define-operations-of-an-stfp-operator-on-airflow

问题 I must use bitwise operations in a group by query but I didn't found anything. Table: PermissionId, BitMask(BigInt) 1, 4 2, 7 1, 8 1, 5 I want results as: 1, 13 2, 7 How can I write this script in T-SQL as below SELECT PermissionId, BIT_OR(BitMask) FROM table GROUP BY PermissionId 回答1: Your question just became very interesting. Create this function(you may want to reconsider the name) CREATE function f_test ( @param bigint ) returns @t table (value bigint) AS BEGIN ;WITH CTE AS ( SELECT

问题 I stumbled upon this question/answer which mentions that in most languages, logical operators such as: x == y && doSomething(); can be faster than doing the same thing with an if branch: if(x == y) { doSomething(); } Similarly, it says that the ternary operator: x = y == z ? 0 : 1 is usually faster than using an if branch: if(y == z) { x = 0; } else { x = 1; } This got me Googling, which led me to this fantastic answer which explains branch prediction. Basically, what it says is that the CPU

问题 I stumbled upon this question/answer which mentions that in most languages, logical operators such as: x == y && doSomething(); can be faster than doing the same thing with an if branch: if(x == y) { doSomething(); } Similarly, it says that the ternary operator: x = y == z ? 0 : 1 is usually faster than using an if branch: if(y == z) { x = 0; } else { x = 1; } This got me Googling, which led me to this fantastic answer which explains branch prediction. Basically, what it says is that the CPU

问题 I am sending a large number of simultaneous requests to a particular web service with different data. To achieve this, I have created a number of threads(around 50 in number). Total number of requests per minute may increase up to 10000. The application in the form of a windows service runs fine for a few minutes and then a operation time out error is encountered. I have tried the usual suspects such as increasing DefaultConnectionLimit , closing the web response object. Since the requests do

问题 I am sending a large number of simultaneous requests to a particular web service with different data. To achieve this, I have created a number of threads(around 50 in number). Total number of requests per minute may increase up to 10000. The application in the form of a windows service runs fine for a few minutes and then a operation time out error is encountered. I have tried the usual suspects such as increasing DefaultConnectionLimit , closing the web response object. Since the requests do

问题 I am sending a large number of simultaneous requests to a particular web service with different data. To achieve this, I have created a number of threads(around 50 in number). Total number of requests per minute may increase up to 10000. The application in the form of a windows service runs fine for a few minutes and then a operation time out error is encountered. I have tried the usual suspects such as increasing DefaultConnectionLimit , closing the web response object. Since the requests do

问题 I were practicing some c programming when I saw this: #include <stdio.h> int main (void){ printf("result %.50lf",(double)10.0/10000000.0); return 0; } And the result was 0.00000099999999999999995474811182588625868561393872 Can somebody explain me why happens this? 回答1: The internal representation of double is a binary floating-point encoding that cannot precisely represent all (or indeed most) decimal fractions, for the same reason for example 1/3 cannot be exactly represented in decimal, 10