Kevin,
This should do your job:
"I've created a wrapper function to replicate the functionalilty of RAND() but 
instead using the CryptGenRandom call"

http://www.west-wind.com/wwthreads/Message2FL0H5YPG.wwt

Dave




-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Cully
Sent: 20 November 2012 16:49
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Generating random sample data

Well, searching the ProFox archives, I see this was discussed earlier and the 
suggestions point here:

http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=844242


On 11/20/2012 11:37 AM, Kevin Cully wrote:
> Hello Profoxers,
>
> I'm trying to generate a good sample data and I'm trying to generate 
> it as quickly as possible of course.  I'm not sure I think I know
> =RAND() like I think I did.
>
> Here's what I'm trying to do:
> [1] Generate log data for a random number of users [2] ... that visit 
> a random number of customer records [3] .... that generate a random 
> number activities [4] ..... that occur at random times of the day
>
> Each of the above steps became a function in my data generation, and 
> one of the first lines is "=RAND(-1)" but I think since I'm in such a 
> tight loop, that the RAND() is seeding off of the clock so I'm not 
> getting a good random seed.
>
> Should I just give up and call some webservice to get better random 
> numbers, or is there something that I'm not understanding?
>
> -Kevin
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to