Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-8, DrGo wrote: > > Thanks Ian, > The std lib float32 is slow for my purpose. In my benchmarking it is > actually slower than the float64. But I don’t even need float16 precision. > I am working on implementing othe alias method for sampling from

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

For future reference: After trying different solutions (some are described in the above posts), the most performant solution was based on Michael Jones' pcg package ( https://github.com/MichaelTJones/pcg) with a tweaked Bound() function (to use an algorithm similar to Go's std lib). Using Go

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

Quoting Marvin Renich (2019-02-26 07:11:47) > * Louki Sumirniy [190226 06:22]: > > Assuming there is bytes in the system's entropy pool, you can also skip the > > scrambling step, though I don't know what overhead consuming these bytes > > entails compared to a standard PRNG. Then the biggest

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

nice speedup using https://github.com/MichaelTJones/pcg ## using stdlb math/rand (Go 1.11.5) pkg: github.com/drgo/abm/rng BenchmarkScalingFreqDistributionSampler/n-levels=2-12

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

Thanks everyone for helpful feedback, What do people think about the approach explained here http://iquilezles.org/www/articles/sfrand/sfrand.htm? Any possible disadvantages in a Go implementation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts"

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

* Louki Sumirniy [190226 06:22]: > Assuming there is bytes in the system's entropy pool, you can also skip the > scrambling step, though I don't know what overhead consuming these bytes > entails compared to a standard PRNG. Then the biggest part of it is making > the raw bytes into float. I'm

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

Assuming there is bytes in the system's entropy pool, you can also skip the scrambling step, though I don't know what overhead consuming these bytes entails compared to a standard PRNG. Then the biggest part of it is making the raw bytes into float. I'm not sure - could you take 4 random bytes,

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

My instinct (for "please invent for me the fastest possible low fidelity floating point prng algorithm") is to look at RC4 for inspiration, permuting the order of a large table of float32s and constantly modifying them as well. This could be pared down to three index accesses, a floating

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

My PCG library's 32-bit generator generates a 32-bit pseudo-random integer in 2.23 ns. https://github.com/MichaelTJones/pcg Just wrote this 32-bit float extension and that delivers a float32 in 2.75 ns. (363 million/good values/sec, period of 2**64 = 4 billion). The extra time is for the

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

If you don't need precision, just generate ints and scale them. -rob On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:39 AM DrGo wrote: > Thanks Ian, > The std lib float32 is slow for my purpose. In my benchmarking it is > actually slower than the float64. But I don’t even need float16 precision. > I am working on

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

Thanks Ian, The std lib float32 is slow for my purpose. In my benchmarking it is actually slower than the float64. But I don’t even need float16 precision. I am working on implementing othe alias method for sampling from a fixed freq dist with possibly thousands of arbitrary values. So the rng

Re: [go-nuts] efficient random float32 number generator?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:01 PM DrGo wrote: > > what is the fastest possible algorithm to generate a float32 pseudo-random > number in [0.0,1.0)? > need to generate billions of numbers. Statistical performance and security > (and even space) are not a priority. > any Go implementations you know