Re: Strange behavior of the random() function - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Олег Самойлов
Subject Re: Strange behavior of the random() function
Date
Msg-id 49BB80D2-EE71-4476-A05A-D9849B9D8B6A@ya.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Strange behavior of the random() function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
> 26 сент. 2018 г., в 6:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> написал(а):
>
> r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru writes:
>> Can anybody explain me that strange behavior?
>
> It's a squishiness in the SQL language, if you ask me.  Consider this
> simplified query:
>
> select random() from generate_series(1, 3) order by random();
>
> Would you expect the output of this query to appear ordered, or not?
> There's an argument to be made that the two instances of random() ought
> to be executed independently for each row, so that the output would
> (probably) seem unordered.  But practical usage generally expects that
> we unify the two textually-identical expressions, so that the behavior
> is the same as
>
> select random() from generate_series(1, 3) order by 1;
>
>>  select random() as "rnd", random() as "rnd1", random() as "rnd2"
>>  from generate_series( 1, 3 )
>>  order by random();
>> All values in any row are the same.
>
> Here, we've unified *all* the appearances of the ORDER BY expression in
> the SELECT-list.  Maybe that's wrong, but it's hard to make a principled
> argument why we shouldn't do it.

Because random() is volatile function, but «unified» in such way can be only stable expressions. That the «volatile»
functionbehaves like  the «stable» function this is obviously is a bug. 

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index?
Next
From: Bruno Wolff III
Date:
Subject: Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index?