I am trying to load up a table with values that are generated randomly based on another table. The issue is that the result set from the final Cross Join
, is not unique (random) for each of the rows of the final cross joined table.
Deconstructed CTE
; with MinMax as -- Step one get the range of values for each `DetailCategoryId`
(
select distinct DetailCategoryId,
min(DetailId) over(partition by DetailCategoryId) as [Min]
, max(DetailId) over(partition by DetailCategoryId) as [Max]
from Ref.Detail
)
, RandProcess as -- Step two pick a random number between the range for each
(
select MM.DetailCategoryId
, (MM.[Min] + FLOOR(RAND() * (MM.[Max] + 1 - MM.[Min]))) as Rando
from MinMax MM
)
The final step is to create a cross reference table by Cross JOIN
that will give the set of RandProcess
into each item. .
select PRJ.ProjectId, RD.DetailCategoryId, RD.Rando
from info.Project PRJ
CROSS JOIN RandProcess RD
The issue is that each set of data in the PRJ
table is the same. Here is the first two rows of each set PRJ
data.
10000 101 7
10000 102 10
...
10001 101 7
10001 102 10
...
10002 101 7
10002 102 10
Question
How can I get each of the PRJs sets to be different (random) for each of the PRJ's rows?
10000 101 7
10000 102 10
...
10001 101 4
10001 102 11
...
10002 101 1
10002 102 14
Why
My goal is to insert these values into another table as test values for each of the PRJ
data elements.
1 Answer 1
RAND()
is evaluated once and hence you get the same value for all rows.
You can use newid()
to simulate a random value. checksum()
to convert it to integer and abs()
to return absolute value. To get into the your required minimum and maximum range
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) % (MM.[Max] - MM.[Min] + 1)) + MM.[Min]
Changes to your RandProcess
cte
RandProcess as -- Step two pick a random number between the range for each
(
select MM.DetailCategoryId
, (ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) % (MM.[Max] - MM.[Min] + 1)) + MM.[Min] as Rando
from MinMax MM
)
-
Interesting, I knew that Random has only one seed, but thought that the CTE cached the first results only and inserted that one set over the final Cross join, which is/was the issue; it wasn't. This suggestion which affected the set generation opened my eyes. Thx.ΩmegaMan– ΩmegaMan2022年04月11日 12:54:11 +00:00Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 12:54