- 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