Randomizing Result Sets with NEWID

Question

Post reply

Randomizing Result Sets with NEWID

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

SQLBOT SSCrazy Eights Points: 8014 More actions · Answer 1

I also forgot to say that there is the NEWSEQUENTIALID() function if you're going to batch load.

That should wreck your cluidx a little less, too.

Craig Outcalt

Tips for new DBAs: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Career/64632
My other articles: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Authors/Articles/Craig_Outcalt/560258

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150468 More actions · Answer 2

Jonathan Kehayias (3/1/2010)
It probably was clustered, its common for App Developers to do this kind of thing. It happened at Microsoft around the Windows 7 RC downloads...

Ah yes, I remember that one 😀

Highly amusing at the time...

Paul White
All articles available on SQL.kiwi
@SQL_Kiwi

Jonathan Kehayias One Orange Chip Points: 26778 More actions · Answer 3

SQLBOT (3/1/2010)
It's the random insertion, not the datatype that causes the problem.
What's the differece if the data inserted is Johnson, Jonsonn, Johnsen or three guids?
Under the hood, there's not a difference.

Craig,

Respectfully, the rate of fragmenation partially depends on what the datatype is for the column. If you are inserting random values into a varchar(8) column, the end impact for fragmentation would be different than a char(8), nchar(8) or nvarchar(8) column because the storage size is different for each so fragmentation rates would be different. A GUID is 16 bytes so it takes more space = fuller pages faster = more page splits = faster fragmentation rates.

Your point is accurate, just playing semantics with you is all. 😉

adish SSChasing Mays Points: 634 More actions · Answer 4

Paul White (3/1/2010)
Jonathan Kehayias (3/1/2010)
It probably was clustered, its common for App Developers to do this kind of thing. It happened at Microsoft around the Windows 7 RC downloads...
Ah yes, I remember that one 😀
Highly amusing at the time...

It is clustered. Am I doing something terribly wrong? Some light on this please, I am not an expert in SQL and would appreciate guidance from SQL gurus.

Thanks

Jonathan Kehayias One Orange Chip Points: 26778 More actions · Answer 5

adish (3/1/2010)
It is clustered. Am I doing something terribly wrong? Some light on this please, I am not an expert in SQL and would appreciate guidance from SQL gurus.
Thanks

adish,

Read the blog post on the link I provided by Paul Randal. It explains why having a clustered index/primary key on GUID is suboptimal.

SQLRNNR SSC Guru Points: 281334 More actions · Answer 6

Thanks for the article.

Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events

SQLBOT SSCrazy Eights Points: 8014 More actions · Answer 7

Jonathan Kehayias (3/1/2010)
SQLBOT (3/1/2010)
It's the random insertion, not the datatype that causes the problem.
What's the differece if the data inserted is Johnson, Jonsonn, Johnsen or three guids?
Under the hood, there's not a difference.
Craig,
Respectfully, the rate of fragmenation partially depends on what the datatype is for the column. If you are inserting random values into a varchar(8) column, the end impact for fragmentation would be different than a char(8), nchar(8) or nvarchar(8) column because the storage size is different for each so fragmentation rates would be different. A GUID is 16 bytes so it takes more space = fuller pages faster = more page splits = faster fragmentation rates.
Your point is accurate, just playing semantics with you is all. 😉

Hey, that's a great point.

If one were to write up a list of best/worst clustered index keys, I think the guid will fall somewhere in the middle... that's all I'm saying. Worst would be (I think) a long composite key based on random insertions for the reasons we both pointed out.

I smell another article coming on!

PM me if you want to contribute.

Thanks,

~Craig

Craig Outcalt

Tips for new DBAs: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Career/64632
My other articles: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Authors/Articles/Craig_Outcalt/560258

Martin Vrieze SSCrazy Points: 2760 More actions · Answer 8

I'm curious after reading this thread...why would you assign a random number via RAND() to a varchar instead of simply using one of the numeric data types available? If you are going to index or sort on a column, my recollection from a past read is that numeric data types are more efficient for indexing / sorting.

Any thoughts based on experience from the group on this?

GabyYYZ SSCertifiable Points: 7913 More actions · Answer 9

SQLBOT (3/1/2010)
I also forgot to say that there is the NEWSEQUENTIALID() function if you're going to batch load.
That should wreck your cluidx a little less, too.

If NEWSEQUENTIALID() is the default value on a column, it would be great, but that's the only way to use it as it normally can't be generated on the fly. To get around that, a kluge someone taught me once is:

create proc GenerateSequentialID

as

create table #temp_seqid (rowval uniqueidentifier default newsequentialid())

insert into #temp_seqid default values

select rowval from #temp_seqid

go

Gaby________________________________________________________________"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Albert Einstein

GabyYYZ SSCertifiable Points: 7913 More actions · Answer 10

Paul White (3/1/2010)

GabyYYZ (3/1/2010)
One option, especially if you have an indexed identity column on your source table, is to generate a separate table of random row numbers, create a clustered index on it, and join with the original table.
Nice idea. Of course, the 'random' numbers are then a bit, er, 'fixed' aren't they?
Can't believe you used a RBAR method to populate your table. 😛
For smallish numbers of random rows, I prefer an approach very similar to the one posted by Gary earlier.
It does require a table with a sequential ID, but that's pretty common - excepting those that like GUIDs as a PK *shudder*

LOL, just tried it like I suggested, it did NOT work. Strange, so for now, newid() is still the best way. 🙂

Gaby________________________________________________________________"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Albert Einstein

Barry-193141 Grasshopper Points: 12 More actions · Answer 11

To counter performance issues, the easiest thing to do is add tablesample (10 percent) to the query.

This way the newid() function only needs to run on an already randomized sample of 10 percent instead of against the entire data set.

Barry

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150468 More actions · Answer 12

Barry-193141 (3/3/2010)
To counter performance issues, the easiest thing to do is add tablesample (10 percent) to the query.
This way the newid() function only needs to run on an already randomized sample of 10 percent instead of against the entire data set.

Just to sure never to use the technique with small tables - you'll likely get no rows at all.

One other point for the general discussion: If a good distribution of random values is important to you, ORDER BY CHECKSUM(NEWID()) is better in that respect.

Paul

Paul White
All articles available on SQL.kiwi
@SQL_Kiwi

DannyS SSC Veteran Points: 231 More actions · Answer 13

Mr Random again....

tablesample limitations per msdn:

Rows on individual pages of the table are not correlated with other rows on the same page.

Never saw a database where that condition could be assumed. most are entered sequentially which is very likley to have correlations.

newid() and any function of it is "too perfect" the nice properties, such as good distribution of digits, has to be built in.

true random aren't so perfect exept in very large samples, and good psuedo random should be difficult to distinguish from true random.

If your doing a lottery, or a statistical study, definately look for better solutions.

Barry-193141 Grasshopper Points: 12 More actions · Answer 14

All that means from MSDN is that a random sample MAY be grouped. Its still a random sample.

Say you had 26 buckets - 1 for each letter of the alphabet - and they were filled with names and you wanted to choose a persons name randomly from one of those buckets.

Tablesample + NewID() would still get you a random person.

Tablesample would randomly get you one of the 26 letters and then newid() would get you a random person from that letter.

Seems as random as any other method.

sqlservercentral-1070393 (3/3/2010)
Mr Random again....
tablesample limitations per msdn:
Rows on individual pages of the table are not correlated with other rows on the same page.
Never saw a database where that condition could be assumed. most are entered sequentially which is very likley to have correlations.
newid() and any function of it is "too perfect" the nice properties, such as good distribution of digits, has to be built in.
true random aren't so perfect exept in very large samples, and good psuedo random should be difficult to distinguish from true random.
If your doing a lottery, or a statistical study, definately look for better solutions.

nick.mcdermaid Hall of Fame Points: 3809 More actions · Answer 15

Someone appears to have drawn some inspiration from your article.

http://subhrosaha.wordpress.com/