Horton

Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>

View thread
From: Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-12-09T19:10:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Round off random_normal() test results one more decimal place.

  2. Remove pg_regress' never-documented "ignore" feature.

  3. Upgrade the random.sql regression test.

  4. Invent random_normal() to provide normally-distributed random numbers.


> On Dec 9, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/9/22 13:51, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 2022, at 10:39 AM, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 8, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
>>>> Just a utility function to generate random numbers from a normal
>>>> distribution. I find myself doing this several times a year, and I am
>>>> sure I must not be the only one.
>>> Thanks for the patch.  What do you think about these results?
>> Angels on pins time! :)
> 
> I just noticed this thread -- what is lacking in the normal_rand() function in the tablefunc contrib?
> 
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/tablefunc.html#id-1.11.7.52.5

Simplicity I guess mostly. random_normal() has a direct analogue in random() which is also a core function. I mean it could equally be pointed out that a user can implement their own Box-Muller calculation pretty trivially. Part of this submission is a personal wondering to what extent the community values convenience vs composibility. The set-returning nature of normal_rand() may be a bit of a red herring to people who just want one value (even though normal_rand (1, 0.0, 1.0) does exactly what they want).

P.