Chris Snyder wrote: > Add a random number to a sufficiently deep timestamp (microseconds) > and you will have a non-repeating random number. But you can't shorten > it to 8 characters or whatever -- you have to keep the full timestamp > in order to maintain non-repeatability.
Not really, if you add a random number then you can easily end up with 2 results that are the same unless the frequency with which you generate numbers is less than the variation you're introducing, and at that point why bother with the random number at all... It is not possible to produce a fixed-length number/string which will _never_ repeat, simply because you will run out of combinations eventually. Using 'random' values just means that you can't take the previous number and add one to determine the next unused number. If you're trying to generate relatively short pseudo-random IDs to thwart guesses, then the simplest method is going to be the previously-recommended approach of generating a random number and checking if it has already been used, rinse and repeat until you find one that has not. This will get progressively slower as the number of IDs generated grows, but is the only way you can be 100% sure of a truly random ID which will never conflict. If you go with a scheme like uuids then you can be sufficiently confident (but never 100% sure) that they are not going to repeat. However, if you try using some scheme to hash them down to 8 digits all bets are off as you're going from 16^32 down to 10^8 combinations. Dan _______________________________________________ New York PHP User Group Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
