The comment in the random() function indicates that its author thought
it'd produce output in the range 0..1, which seems like a pretty
reasonable definition:

	/* result 0.0-1.0 */
	result = ((double) random()) / RAND_MAX;

Unfortunately, at least on my box, it produces no such thing.  random()
actually yields values in the range 0..2^31-1 --- while RAND_MAX is
only 32767, because it applies to the rand() function not random().
So what I actually get is floating-point output in the range 0..65535.

regression=# select random();
      random
------------------
 35771.3981139561
(1 row)

regression=# select random();
      random
------------------
 58647.5821405683
(1 row)

This is, to say the least, a bizarre definition.

I would like to propose changing the code to

	/* result 0.0-1.0 */
	result = ((double) random()) / INT_MAX;

(and making the corresponding change in setseed()).  But I wonder if
anyone out there has applications that depend on the current behavior.

As far as I can find, random() isn't mentioned in the documentation
currently, so there probably aren't many people using it...

			regards, tom lane

Responses

• Re: random() function produces wrong range at 2000-08-01 17:46:46 from Stephan Szabo
• Re: [HACKERS] random() function produces wrong range at 2000-08-02 06:10:34 from Thomas Lockhart

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Philip Warner	Date: 2000-08-01 16:10:49
	Subject: Re: pg_dump and pg_restore, speed
Previous:	From: Lamar Owen	Date: 2000-08-01 15:45:58
	Subject: Re: RPMs built for Mandrake

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Stephan Szabo	Date: 2000-08-01 16:51:35
	Subject: Re: How to alter the size of a column
Previous:	From: Fetter, David M	Date: 2000-08-01 14:40:12
	Subject: RE: postgres perl DBI