Comparing ColdFusion Number Randomization Algorithms

Posted July 23, 2007 at 8:09 AM

Tags: ColdFusion

The other week, I posted about how I didn't feel like ColdFusion always did a great job of random number generation. When using ColdFusion's RandRange() method, I just pass in the two required integers. After posting this, Dustin told me that ColdFusion MX7 introduced a third argument for the RandRange() method, which was the algorithm by which the random numbers were generated. By default, ColdFusion uses the CFMX_COMPAT algorithm. Apparently (and this is stated directly in the documentation), the alternate algorithm, SHA1PRNG, will do a much better job of randomizing numbers.

To explore these two algorithms, I first wanted to start out graphing them, to see if I could see any obvious trends. In the following example, I am looping over the two algorithms and then using ColdFusion's CFChart tag to charge 50 random numbers between the values 1 and 50.

 Launch code in new window » Download code as text file »

From the above code, we get the following graphs:

Algorithm: CFMX_COMPAT (ColdFusion's Default)

Algorithm: SHA1PRNG (Added in ColdFusion MX7)

Now, I look at these two graphs, and frankly, they don't mean anything to me. I don't see trends, and even if I do see some trends, I don't understand the significance. Both of these graphics look like a nice randomized set of numbers.

But more than that, this is not a useful test case for me. My issues with randomness rarely involve generating a ton of numbers right in a row; my scenarios usually involve manually refreshing a page to see if something is rotating "properly" (think advertisements or header images). In that case, there is a big delay between random number generation (compared the delay between CFLoop iterations). In my next experiment, I am using a META tag refresh to put a uniform delay between my page refreshes as this will most closely mimic me sitting there and hitting the browser's refresh button:

 Launch code in new window » Download code as text file »

I ran the above code three times for each algorithm and here are the number lists that were generated:

Algorithm: CFMX_COMPAT (ColdFusion's Default)

• 9,7,7,7,7,7,7,6,6,6,6,9,9,8,9,8,8,8,8,8
• 3,6,6,6,5,6,6,5,5,4,4,5,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2
• 5,8,8,7,7,6,7,7,6,6,9,10,9,9,8,8,9,8,8,8

Algorithm: SHA1PRNG (Added in ColdFusion MX7)

• 6,8,9,6,4,5,5,9,8,4,10,5,7,4,4,8,10,2,6,1
• 6,6,8,9,8,1,8,9,9,3,7,3,3,5,6,7,7,3,4,5
• 4,8,2,8,4,1,4,4,3,3,9,10,2,10,6,6,4,4,5,2

Just looking at these numbers, I can clearly see grouping in the CFMX_COMPAT algorithm. There is some grouping in the SHA1PRNG algorithm, but to a much much lesser degree. I don't know how the timing of the random number generation affects things, but it seems to have some sort of a link to the seemingly effective nature of the outcome. Now, I say "seemingly" because, remember, I am really more concerned about an even distribution of numbers and less so about the actual randomization of the numbers. Randomization or not, the SHA1PRNG seems to have a better distribution of numbers.

Download Code Snippet ZIP File

Post Comment  |  Ask Ben  |  Permalink  |  Other Searches  |  Print Page

• Add To Del.icio.us
• Add To Digg
• Add to Spurl.net
• Add to Wists
• Add to Simpy
• Add to Newsvine
• Add to BlinkList
• Add to Furl
• Add to reddit
• Add to FARK
• Add to BlogMarks
• Add to Yahoo! My Web
• Add to smarking
• Add to Ma.gnolia
• Add to Segnalo

Reader Comments

Here's the mathematical proof for the variance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance) of the above results.

CFMX_COMPAT - variance - standard dev
test 1 - 1.05 - 1.0246
test 2 - 2.69 - 1.6401
test 3 - 1.5275 - 1.2359

SHA1PRNG - variance - standard dev
test 1 - 6.1475 - 2.4794
test 2 - 5.4275 - 2.3296
test 3 - 7.1475 - 2.6734

As the numbers get larger, the more variance the test set has present. A standard deviation of 2 means you should be hitting ~95% of your population, where 1 is only ~68%. The proof is in the pudding so to speak (sorry for the math pun).

I used this UDF to calculate the variance: http://www.cflib.org/udf.cfm?ID=256

@Dustin,

It's been a million years since I took a statistics class (and didn't do so well in it). From what it looks like, a bigger standard deviation is a Good thing since, if you think about the Bell Curve, you are covering more ground (as you say, I think). Thanks for doing the testing.

Yeah, it has been a long time for me as well. In fact I forgot about normal vs. random distributions when talking about standard deviation. The confidence levels stated (~95% and ~64%) are for a normal distribution, which we aren't dealing with. For a random distribution it is ~75% for 2 stddevs and ~50% for 1.41 stddevs.

I'm beginning to remember why I didn't particularity care for the class.

Yeah, if I never hear about a z-test or t-square test (or something like that) again, I will quite content. My brain just doesn't seem to like that sort of thing.

Thanks Ben,

I was complaining about the default behavior of randrange to a colleague only 2 days ago when observing the behavior of an online competition application we were running.

Little did I know that this behavior could be changed!

All goes to show I should RTFM!

@Dan,

Hey, I just learned about this too :)

I will quite content. My brain just doesn't seem to like that sort of thing.

Post Comment  |  Ask Ben

Post A Comment

Please review the following issues:

Author Name:
Author Email:
Author Website:
Comment:	Formatting: <strong>bold</strong> <em>italic<em>
	Remember my information
	Subscribe to entry *
	Send me a copy of this comment (as part of the comment thread)

 

* If you subscribe, any new posts to this thread will be sent to your email address.