From: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: surprising results with random() |
Date: | 2009-02-23 22:47:05 |
Message-ID: | 5C99FB52-A5C2-47DF-864E-6A2800F06F9E@blighty.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Feb 23, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Jessi Berkelhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a view in which I want to randomly assign values if certain
> conditions hold. I was getting surprising results. Here is a (very)
> simplified version of the view, which seems to indicate the problem:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW test_view AS
> SELECT
> CASE
> WHEN random() < .3333 THEN '1'
> WHEN random() < .3333 THEN '2'
> ELSE '3'
> END AS test_value
>
> FROM client ;
>
> It seems this should generate a random number between 0 and 1, and set
> test_value to '1' if this first generated number is less than .3333.
> Otherwise, it should generate another random number, and set
> test_value
> to '2' if this is less than .3333. And if neither of the random
> numbers
> are less than .3333, it should set test_value to '3'. It seems to me
> that there should be a relative even distribution of the 3 values.
>
>
> However when I run this, the values are always similar to what is
> below:
>
> X_test=> select test_value, count(*) from test_view group by 1
> order by 1;
> test_value | count
> ------------+-------
> 1 | 23947
> 2 | 16061
> 3 | 32443
>
> Why are there significantly fewer 2s? I understand that random() is
> not
> truly random, and that the seed affects this value. But it still
> confuses me that, no matter how many times I run this, there are
> always
> so few 2s. If it is generating an independent random number in the
> second call to random(), then I don't know why there are more so many
> more 1s than 2s.
Nope, it's nothing to do with random(), it's that your maths is wrong.
There are 9 possible cases. In 3 of them you return 1. In 2 of them you
return 2. In the remaining 4 cases you return 3.
If you were to run this 72451 times I'd expect to see
1: 24150 = 72451 * 3/9
2: 16100 = 72451 * 2/9
3: 32200 = 72451 * 4/9
Which, unsurprisingly, is fairly close to what you get.
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ries van Twisk | 2009-02-23 23:12:10 | Re: surprising results with random() |
Previous Message | raf | 2009-02-23 22:40:01 | Re: problems with win32 enterprisedb 8.3.6 ssl=on |