In message <QZ6dnd7j0a-GsofVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@comcast.com>, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes
>Nick Wedd wrote:
>> In message <69qdnTw3ffk8Z4TVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com>, Jerry
>>Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes
>>> Nick Wedd wrote:
>>>> In message <n8GdnZSDT8M7gIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Jerry
>>>>Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes
>>>>> Cosmic programmer wrote:
>>>>>> How good is the rand function of MySQL? How can it be improved?
>>>>>> Thx.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> When you argue with a fool, chances are he's doing the same
>>>>>
>>>>> It's as good as pretty much any pseudo-random number generator.
>>>>>Why do you think it needs to be improved?
>>>> If it's only as good as any pseudo-random number generator, it
>>>>definitely needs to be improved.
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>
>>> And exactly how would you do that? Most pseudo-random number
>>>generators are pretty good, IMHO. And there is no such thing as a
>>>true random number generator.
>> Knuth's "Numerical recipes in C" explains what can be wrong with
>>system-supplied rand() functions. He wrote it 20 years ago, and
>>things must have improved since then; but I still wouldn't trust a
>>system-supplied rand(). He gives code for improving a system rand(),
>>also for replacing it by one known to be good. His code is in C of
>>course, but is quite short and is easily translated into other languages.
>> Nick
>
>So? You don't think the system programmers haven't improved in 20
>years? Unless you have a specific problem with it, why reinvent the
>wheel?

They have probably improved. I don't know how much they have improved.
If I need a RNG that works, I would rather use one that I know meets my
spec, rather than one that might meet my spec.

Nick

>In fact, I'll bet that in 20 years even Knuth's random number generator
>has been improved upon.
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk