On Tuesday, October 20, 2026, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 3:54 AM Matemática A3K <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In my terms, this would be something like "Accuracy was traded in > > order to better convey the idea to the audience". I find this to be > > valid although I don't share it nor I think the documentation is built > > upon it, but this is just my opinion, thanks for sharing yours. > > pgbench docs already describes random() as producing a > "uniformly-distributed > random integer". So I'm OK with explicitly stating that the distribution is > uniform here as well. > > If we do that, I think it's better to use similar wording to keep the docs > consistent. > I’m not strongly opposed to clarifying this but… pgbench also has random_exponential and random_zipfian and calls random_normal random_gaussian. Its target audience is quite different than the person executing random in some SQL command. The fact that normal_uniform doesn’t actually exist because an unqualified random is conventionally drawn without any bias to a particular value. The clarification in pgbench seems more like pattern matching with its larger set of random variants. I’m less inclined to use pgbench’s phrasing for much the same reason - the returns wording seems to fit better in chapter 9. I’m also not a fan of using “uniformly” if we do clarify this. “…from a uniform distribution covering 0 <= x < 1” would pattern match the existing random_normal wording. David J.
