Comments on: Weighted Randomness using PHP and MySQL http://www.jacoballred.com/random/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:11:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: DECODV http://www.jacoballred.com/random/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-156 DECODV Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:43:31 +0000 http://www.zulugrid.com/2006/06/20/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/#comment-156 Dude, you rock! Thanks for both the info and prompt response. You just made my day. Dude, you rock! Thanks for both the info and prompt response. You just made my day.

]]> By: zulugrid http://www.jacoballred.com/random/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-155 zulugrid Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:40:04 +0000 http://www.zulugrid.com/2006/06/20/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/#comment-155 @DECODV: 1. I used data provided by the US Census. The percentages were included with the data. 2. I used 10,000 to get nice whole numbers. 1,000 probably would've made more sense (1.006 * 1,000 = 1006, as opposed to 1.006 * 10,000 = 10060). You could use 100 (1.006 * 100 = 100.6), but then you'll have to deal with floats (decimals), which takes a bit more effort than plain old integers and defeats the purpose of multiplying the percentage. Hope this helps! @DECODV:

1. I used data provided by the US Census. The percentages were included with the data.

2. I used 10,000 to get nice whole numbers. 1,000 probably would’ve made more sense (1.006 * 1,000 = 1006, as opposed to 1.006 * 10,000 = 10060). You could use 100 (1.006 * 100 = 100.6), but then you’ll have to deal with floats (decimals), which takes a bit more effort than plain old integers and defeats the purpose of multiplying the percentage.

Hope this helps!

]]> By: DECODV http://www.jacoballred.com/random/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-154 DECODV Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:31:34 +0000 http://www.zulugrid.com/2006/06/20/weighted-randomness-using-php-and-mysql/#comment-154 By far, this single page and your willingness to share has the potential of being the best part of my day. I only have two questions that can help fully explain this to me. 1. Did you set/pick the percentage of each name yourself, or is there some math you applied to each name/record that I'm missing? 2. Why are you using the number 10,000? Could I just as easily use the number 100? Again, thanks for the info so far. You've been a wonderful help as I've been searching for this information all day with nothing worth talking about ... until now. ;~) By far, this single page and your willingness to share has the potential of being the best part of my day.

I only have two questions that can help fully explain this to me.

1. Did you set/pick the percentage of each name yourself, or is there some math you applied to each name/record that I’m missing?

2. Why are you using the number 10,000? Could I just as easily use the number 100?

Again, thanks for the info so far. You’ve been a wonderful help as I’ve been searching for this information all day with nothing worth talking about … until now. ;~)

]]>