George Eric R Contr AFSPC/CVYZ writes:
> I'm not sure what the problem with this is? The first (unique) column is > independent of the second (random) column. If the random column has > duplicate values, it just means that the corrosponding first column values > will be adjacent in the sorted table. If you're really depending on the randomness, this would be a bad thing. I don't suppose what it was going to be used for was something as sensitive as an Ising model simulation, so it's probably not a big deal. And besides, the random munber generator used in MySQL is probably platform specific and not guaranteed to be good enough for something like that. > BTW: Does the MySQL sort algorithm > preserve relative positions for rows with duplicate keys? This is an interesting question, and I'd guess that it doesn't. Besides, the order of rows in a table isn't all that well-defined anyway. Still, some tests on this would be interesting to see. [SNIP] > Sure, this will work also. It appears to be more complicated though, and I > don't see any particular advantage. That doesn't mean there isn't one of > course! Ah, how true. All of it. It is more complicated, and although I see some points, I don't they're very strong ones. :-o //C -- Carl Troein - Círdan / Istari-PixelMagic - UIN 16353280 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pixelmagic.dyndns.org/~cirdan/ Amiga user since '89, and damned proud of it too. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
