- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:38:55 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>>
>> Maybe we can specify RAND(seed) by simply saying that it will generate a pseudorandom sequence with the suggestion ("SHOULD") generate the same sequence on each run as a debugging aid. This decouples it from solution sequences.
>
> A "SHOULD" is probably a good idea. It's not just a debugging aid though, it's for repeatability generally.
>
>> An implementation can be simply a random number generator like srand(N).
>
> I'm not sure who's / which srand(n) you're referring to.
This one:
http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_node/ISO-Random.html
> The key thing is that you get the same return value twice if you do something like:
> FILTER(RAND(1)> 0.5&& RAND(1)< 0.6)
For me, that's not necessary. For predictability, all I require is that
each call of RAND(seed) returns the same number at the same point in
execution across runs.
Maybe I don't understand RAND for SQL well enough but I thought that
RAND() returns different numbers in
FILTER(RAND()> 0.5&& RAND()< 0.6)
(if you want the same number assign it in some way)
As RAND() returns different numbers, so
FILTER(RAND(1)> 0.5&& RAND(1)< 0.6)
should, just the same numbers at the same invocation count every run.
Andy
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 11:39:37 UTC