Please don't top post!
See below for my comments.
On 09/07/14 07:04, Kynn Jones wrote:
Thanks to Gavin and Martijn for their suggestions. They're both simple
good-ol' LCGs, and both avoid the need to check for collisions.
I ultimately went with a multiplicative LCG, like Martijn's, mostly
because I understand better how it avoids collisions, so it was easier
for me to tweak it in various ways.
In particular, I changed the prime number from 899981 to the very
lucky prime 900001. This happens to work *perfectly*, because the
range of such a generator is p-1, not p. (BTW, Martijn's choice of
the "random" 2345 for the multiplier was a somewhat lucky one, since
such generators are not full for arbitrary multipliers; for example,
the one with modulus 899981 is not full for a multiplier of 3456, say.)
I also followed Martijn's pointer regarding the 3-argument form of
python's pow function, and implemented a 3-argument pow for PL/PgSQL.
I include all the code below, including a snippet borrowed from
Gavin's post, and modified here and there. (I'm not very experienced
with PL/PgSQL, so please feel free to point out ways in which my
PL/PgSQL code can be improved.)
First the functions:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pow_mod(bigx bigint, n bigint, m
bigint) returns bigint AS $$
DECLARE
x bigint;
xx bigint;
BEGIN
IF n = 0 THEN RETURN 1; END IF;
x := bigx % m;
xx := (x * x) % m;
IF n % 2 = 0 THEN
RETURN pow_mod(xx, n/2, m);
ELSE
RETURN (x * pow_mod(xx, (n-1)/2, m)) % m;
END IF;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql strict immutable;
-- "mcg" = "multiplicative congruential generator"
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mcg_900001(i bigint) returns int AS $$
BEGIN
-- CHECK (0 < i AND i < 900001)
RETURN 99999 + pow_mod(<INSERT YOUR MULTIPLIER HERE>, i, 900001);
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql strict immutable;
And here's a small demo:
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS rtab;
DROP SEQUENCE IF EXISTS rseq;
CREATE SEQUENCE rseq;
CREATE TABLE rtab
(
id int PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT mcg_900001(nextval('rseq')),
payload int NOT NULL
);
\timing on \\ INSERT INTO rtab (payload) VALUES
(generate_series(1, 900000)); \timing off
-- Timing is on.
-- INSERT 0 900000
-- Time: 201450.781 ms
-- Timing is off.
SELECT * FROM rtab WHERE 449990 < payload AND payload < 450011;
-- id | payload
-- --------+---------
-- 539815 | 449991
-- 901731 | 449992
-- 878336 | 449993
-- 564275 | 449994
-- 863664 | 449995
-- 720159 | 449996
-- 987833 | 449997
-- 999471 | 449998
-- 999977 | 449999
-- 999999 | 450000
-- 921739 | 450001
-- 722684 | 450002
-- 596638 | 450003
-- 121592 | 450004
-- 687895 | 450005
-- 477734 | 450006
-- 585988 | 450007
-- 942869 | 450008
-- 175776 | 450009
-- 377207 | 450010
-- (20 rows)
kj
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
<klep...@svana.org <mailto:klep...@svana.org>> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 09:24:31AM -0400, Kynn Jones wrote:
> I'm looking for a way to implement pseudorandom primary keys in
the range
> 100000..999999.
>
> The randomization scheme does not need to be cryptographically
strong. As
> long as it is not easy to figure out in a few minutes it's good
enough.
Well, a trick that produces a not too easy to guess sequence is:
X(n) = p^n mod q
where q is prime. Pick the largest prime that will fit, in this case
899981 (I beleive) and some random p, say 2345.
Then 100000 + (2345^n) mod 899981
should be a sequence fitting your purpose. Unfortunatly, the pow()
function in Postgres can't be used here (too slow and it overflows),
but python has a helpful function:
In [113]: len( set( pow(2345, n, 899981) for n in range(899981) ) )
Out[113]: 899980
You could probably write an equivalent function in Postgres if
necessary.
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org
<mailto:klep...@svana.org>> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset
that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=IJFu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Didn't I mention that my code & variable names are copyrighted and my
methods patented? :-)
More seriously, its great that you picked out what you want from
multiple replies! Understanding what is given to you is far better than
blindly cutting & pasting.
Actually I just realized that having an additive constant is essentially
meaningless in this Use Case, as we are feeding in a sequence of
consecutive integers.
Cheers,
Gavin
