ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Random record in ActiveRecord

I'm in need of getting a random record from a table via ActiveRecord. I've followed the example from Jamis Buck from 2006.

However, I've also come across another way via a Google search (can't attribute with a link due to new user restrictions):

 rand_id = rand(Model.count)
 rand_record = Model.first(:conditions => ["id >= ?", rand_id])

I'm curious how others on here have done it or if anyone knows what way would be more efficient.

2 points that might help an answer. 1. How evenly distributed are your ids, are they sequential? 2. How random does it need to be? Good enough random, or real random?
They are sequential ids that are auto generated by activerecord and it just has to be good enough.
Then your proposed solution is close to ideal :) I'd use "SELECT MAX(id) FROM table_name" instead of the COUNT(*) as it will deal with deleted rows a bit better, otherwise, the rest is fine. In short, if "good enough" is ok, then you just have to have a method that assumes a distribution close to what you actually have. If it's uniform and even as you've said, simple rand works great.
This won't work when you have deleted rows.

M
Mohamad

Rails 6

As stated by Jason in the comments, in Rails 6, non-attribute arguments are not allowed. You must wrap the value in an Arel.sql() statement.

Model.order(Arel.sql('RANDOM()')).first

Rails 5, 4

In Rails 4 and 5, using Postgresql or SQLite, using RANDOM():

Model.order('RANDOM()').first

Presumably the same would work for MySQL with RAND()

Model.order('RAND()').first

This is about 2.5 times faster than the approach in the accepted answer.

Caveat: This is slow for large datasets with millions of records, so you might want to add a limit clause.


"Random()" also works in sqlite, so for those of us still developing on sqlite and running postgres in production, your solution works in both environments.
I created a benchmark for this against the accepted answer. On Postgresql 9.4 the approach of this answer is about twice as fast.
Looks like it is not recommended on mysql webtrenches.com/post.cfm/avoid-rand-in-mysql
"Non-attribute arguments will be disallowed in Rails 6.0. This method should not be called with user-provided values, such as request parameters or model attributes. Known-safe values can be passed by wrapping them in Arel.sql()."
Model.except(:order).order(Arel.sql('RANDOM()')).first if you have a default scope that overrides the order
J
Jonathan Allard

I haven't found an ideal way to do this without at least two queries.

The following uses a randomly generated number (up to the current record count) as an offset.

offset = rand(Model.count)

# Rails 4
rand_record = Model.offset(offset).first

# Rails 3
rand_record = Model.first(:offset => offset)

To be honest, I've just been using ORDER BY RAND() or RANDOM() (depending on the database). It's not a performance issue if you don't have a performance issue.


The code Model.find(:offset => offset).first will throw error. I think Model.first(:offset => offset) might perform better.
yeah, i have been working with Rails 3 and keep getting confused about the query formats between versions.
Note that using offset is very slow with large dataset, since it actually needs index scan (or table scan, in case clustered index is used like InnoDB). In other words, it's O(N) operation but "WHERE id >= #{rand_id} ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 1" is O(log N), which is much faster.
Be aware that the offset-approach only yields a single randomly found data point (the first, all after are still sorted by id). If you need multiple randomly selected records you must use this approach multiple times or use the random order method provided by your database, i.e. Thing.order("RANDOM()").limit(100) for 100 randomly selected entries. (Be aware that it's RANDOM() in PostgreSQL and RAND() in MySQL ... not as portable as you may want it to be.)
Doesn't work for me on Rails 4. Use Model.offset(offset).first.
s
semanticart

Your example code will start to behave inaccurately once records are deleted (it will unfairly favor items with lower ids)

You're probably better off using the random methods within your database. These vary depending on which DB you're using, but :order => "RAND()" works for mysql and :order => "RANDOM()" works for postgres

Model.first(:order => "RANDOM()") # postgres example

ORDER BY RAND() for MySQL ends up in horrific runtime as data increases. It's unmaintainable (depending on time requirements) even starting at just thousands of rows.
Michael brings up a great point (that is true for other DBs as well). Generally selecting random rows from large tables isn't something you want to do in a dynamic action. Caching is your friend. Rethinking what you're trying to accomplish might not be a bad idea either.
Ordering RAND() in mysql on a table with about a million rows is slooooooooooooooooooooow.
Doesn't work anymore. Use Model.order("RANDOM()").first instead.
Slow and database specific. ActiveRecord is supposed to work seamlessly between databases so you shouldn't use this method.
d
dkam

Benchmarking these two methods on MySQL 5.1.49, Ruby 1.9.2p180 on a products table with +5million records:

def random1
  rand_id = rand(Product.count)
  rand_record = Product.first(:conditions => [ "id >= ?", rand_id])
end

def random2
  if (c = Product.count) != 0
    Product.find(:first, :offset =>rand(c))
  end
end

n = 10
Benchmark.bm(7) do |x|
  x.report("next id:") { n.times {|i| random1 } }
  x.report("offset:")  { n.times {|i| random2 } }
end


             user     system      total        real
next id:  0.040000   0.000000   0.040000 (  0.225149)
offset :  0.020000   0.000000   0.020000 ( 35.234383)

Offset in MySQL appears to be much slower.

EDIT I also tried

Product.first(:order => "RAND()")

But I had to kill it after ~60 seconds. MySQL was "Copying to tmp table on disk". That's not going to work.


For those looking for more tests how long a real random approach takes: I tried Thing.order("RANDOM()").first on a table with 250k entries - the query finished under half a second. (PostgreSQL 9.0, REE 1.8.7, 2 x 2.66 GHz cores) That's fast enough for me, since I'm doing a one-time "cleanup".
Ruby's rand method returns one less that the specified number so you'll want rand_id = rand(Product.count) + 1 or you'll never get the last record.
Note random1 will not work if you ever delete a row in the table. (Count will be less than the max id and you'll never be able to select rows with high ids).
Using random2 can be improved by an #order using an indexed column.
S
Sajad Torkamani

It is not advised that you use this solution, but if for some reason you really want to randomly select a record while only making one database query, you could use the sample method from the Ruby Array class, which allows you to select a random item from an array.

Model.all.sample

This method requires only one database query, but it's significantly slower than alternatives like Model.offset(rand(Model.count)).first which require two database queries, though the latter is still preferred.


If you have 100k rows in your database, all of these would have to be loaded into memory.
Of course it is not recommended for production realtime code, but I like this solution, it is very clear to use for special situations like the seeding the database with fake values.
Please - never say never. This is a great solution for development-time debugging if the table is small. (And if you're taking samples, debugging is quite possibly the use case).
Im using for seeding and is good for me. In addition, Model.all.sample(n) works too :)
Agree with @mahemoff, you may have a large complex table and want a sample of results, so calling something like Foo.where("json_col -> 'foo' ->> 'bar' ILIKE ?", "%baz%").sample(5) would allow you to inspect your results.
N
Niels B.

It doesn't have to be that hard.

ids = Model.pluck(:id)
random_model = Model.find(ids.sample)

pluck returns an array of all the id's in the table. The sample method on the array, returns a random id from the array.

This should perform well, with equal probability of selection and support for tables with deleted rows. You can even mix it with constraints.

User.where(favorite_day: "Friday").pluck(:id)

And thereby pick a random user who likes fridays rather than just any user.


This is clean and works for a small table or one-time usage, just note it won't scale. On a 3M table, plucking IDs takes about 15 seconds for me on MariaDB.
That's a good point. Have you found an alternative solution that's faster, while maintaining the same qualities?
Doesn't the accepted offset solution maintain the same qualities?
No, it does not support conditions and does not have an equal probability of selection for tables with deleted records.
Come to think of it, if you apply the constraints when both counting and selecting with an offset, the technique should work. I was imagining only applying it on the count.
s
spilliton

I made a rails 3 gem to handle this:

https://github.com/spilliton/randumb

It allows you do do stuff like this:

Model.where(:column => "value").random(10)

In the documentation of this gem they explain "randumb simply tacks an additional ORDER BY RANDOM() (or RAND() for mysql) to your query." – therefore, the comments on bad performance mentioned in comments to the answer by @semanticart also apply when using this gem. But at least it's DB independent.
K
Knotty66

I use this so often from the console I extend ActiveRecord in an initializer - Rails 4 example:

class ActiveRecord::Base
  def self.random
    self.limit(1).offset(rand(self.count)).first
  end
end

I can then call Foo.random to bring back a random record.


do you need limit(1)? ActiveRecord#first should be smart enough to do that.
Nice simple solution! I suppose you could also put it in the default ApplicationRecord as another alternative.
S
Sam

Reading all of these did not give me a lot of confidence about which of these would work best in my particular situation with Rails 5 and MySQL/Maria 5.5. So I tested some of the answers on ~ 65000 records, and have two take aways:

RAND() with a limit is a clear winner. Do not use pluck + sample.

def random1
  Model.find(rand((Model.last.id + 1)))
end

def random2
  Model.order("RAND()").limit(1)
end

def random3
  Model.pluck(:id).sample
end

n = 100
Benchmark.bm(7) do |x|
  x.report("find:")    { n.times {|i| random1 } }
  x.report("order:")   { n.times {|i| random2 } }
  x.report("pluck:")   { n.times {|i| random3 } }
end

              user     system      total        real
find:     0.090000   0.000000   0.090000 (  0.127585)
order:    0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.002095)
pluck:    6.150000   0.000000   6.150000 (  8.292074)

This answer synthesizes, validates and updates Mohamed's answer, as well as Nami WANG's comment on the same and Florian Pilz's comment on the accepted answer - please send up votes to them!


D
Derek Fan

Strongly Recommend this gem for random records, which is specially designed for table with lots of data rows:

https://github.com/haopingfan/quick_random_records

All other answers perform badly with large database, except this gem:

quick_random_records only cost 4.6ms totally.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/nmydu.png

the User.order('RAND()').limit(10) cost 733.0ms.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/PrFx9.png

the accepted answer offset approach cost 245.4ms totally.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/0iAQe.png

the User.all.sample(10) approach cost 573.4ms.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ktRv.png

Note: My table only has 120,000 users. The more records you have, the more enormous the difference of performance will be.


T
Thomas Klemm

One query in Postgres:

User.order('RANDOM()').limit(3).to_sql # Postgres example
=> "SELECT "users".* FROM "users" ORDER BY RANDOM() LIMIT 3"

Using an offset, two queries:

offset = rand(User.count) # returns an integer between 0 and (User.count - 1)
Model.offset(offset).limit(1)

No need for -1, rand counts up to num - 1
Thanks, changed :+1:
t
trejo08

You can use the Array method sample, the method sample returns a random object from an array, in order to use it you just need to exec in a simple ActiveRecord query that return a collection, for example:

User.all.sample

will return something like this:

#<User id: 25, name: "John Doe", email: "admin@example.info", created_at: "2018-04-16 19:31:12", updated_at: "2018-04-16 19:31:12">

I wouldn't recommend working with array methods while using AR. This way takes almost 8 times the time order('rand()').limit(1) does "the same" job (with ~10K records).
Y
Yuri Karpovich

If you need to select some random results within specified scope:

scope :male_names, -> { where(sex: 'm') }
number_of_results = 10

rand = Names.male_names.pluck(:id).sample(number_of_results)
Names.where(id: rand)

G
Gregdebrick

Very old question but with :

rand_record = Model.all.shuffle

You got an Array of record, sort by random order. No need gems or scripts.

If you want one record :

rand_record = Model.all.shuffle.first

Not the best option, as this loads all records into memory. Also, shuffle.first == .sample
D
Dan Kohn

The Ruby method for randomly picking an item from a list is sample. Wanting to create an efficient sample for ActiveRecord, and based on the previous answers, I used:

module ActiveRecord
  class Base
    def self.sample
      offset(rand(size)).first
    end
  end
end

I put this in lib/ext/sample.rb and then load it with this in config/initializers/monkey_patches.rb:

Dir[Rails.root.join('lib/ext/*.rb')].each { |file| require file }

This will be one query if the size of the model is already cached and two otherwise.


m
mahatmanich

Rails 4.2 and Oracle:

For oracle you can set a scope on your Model like so:

scope :random_order, -> {order('DBMS_RANDOM.RANDOM')}

or

scope :random_order, -> {order('DBMS_RANDOM.VALUE')}

And then for a sample call it like this:

Model.random_order.take(10)

or

Model.random_order.limit(5)

of course you could also place an order without a scope like so:

Model.all.order('DBMS_RANDOM.RANDOM') # or DBMS_RANDOM.VALUE respectively

You can do this with postgres with order('random()' and MySQL with order('rand()') as well. This is definitely the best answer.
V
Vadim Eremeev

For MySQL database try: Model.order("RAND()").first


This doesnt work on mysql.. you should incloude at least what DB engine is this suppose to work with
Sorry, there was typo. Fixed now. Should work for mysql (only)
A
Adam Sheehan

If you're using PostgreSQL 9.5+, you can take advantage of TABLESAMPLE to select a random record.

The two default sampling methods (SYSTEM and BERNOULLI) require that you specify the number of rows to return as a percentage of the total number of rows in the table.

-- Fetch 10% of the rows in the customers table.
SELECT * FROM customers TABLESAMPLE BERNOULLI(10);

This requires knowing the amount of records in the table to select the appropriate percentage, which may not be easy to find quickly. Fortunately, there is the tsm_system_rows module that allows you to specify the number of rows to return directly.

CREATE EXTENSION tsm_system_rows;

-- Fetch a single row from the customers table.
SELECT * FROM customers TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM_ROWS(1);

To use this within ActiveRecord, first enable the extension within a migration:

class EnableTsmSystemRowsExtension < ActiveRecord::Migration[5.0]
  def change
    enable_extension "tsm_system_rows"
  end
end

Then modify the from clause of the query:

customer = Customer.from("customers TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM_ROWS(1)").first

I don't know if the SYSTEM_ROWS sampling method will be entirely random or if it just returns the first row from a random page.

Most of this information was taken from a 2ndQuadrant blog post written by Gulcin Yildirim.


M
Mendoza

After seeing so many answers I decided to benchmark them all on my PostgreSQL(9.6.3) database. I use a smaller 100,000 table and got rid of the Model.order("RANDOM()").first since it was already two orders of magnitude slower.

Using a table with 2,500,000 entries with 10 columns the hands down winner was the pluck method being almost 8 times faster than the runner up(offset. I only ran this on a local server so that number might be inflated but its bigger enough that the pluck method is what I'll end up using. It's also worth noting that this might cause issues is you pluck more than 1 result at a time since each one of those will be unique aka less random.

Pluck wins running 100 time on my 25,000,000 row table Edit: actually this time includes the pluck in the loop if I take it out it it runs about as fast as simple iteration on the id. However; it does take up a fair amount of RAM.

RandomModel                 user     system      total        real
Model.find_by(id: i)       0.050000   0.010000   0.060000 (  0.059878)
Model.offset(rand(offset)) 0.030000   0.000000   0.030000 ( 55.282410)
Model.find(ids.sample)     6.450000   0.050000   6.500000 (  7.902458)

Here is the data running 2000 times on my 100,000 row table to rule out random

RandomModel       user     system      total        real
find_by:iterate  0.010000   0.000000   0.010000 (  0.006973)
offset           0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.132614)
"RANDOM()"       0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 ( 24.645371)
pluck            0.110000   0.020000   0.130000 (  0.175932)

C
Community

I'm brand new to RoR but I got this to work for me:

 def random
    @cards = Card.all.sort_by { rand }
 end

It came from:

How to randomly sort (scramble) an array in Ruby?


The bad thing about it is that it's going to load all cards from the database. It's more efficient to do it inside database.
You can also shuffle arrays with array.shuffle. Anyway, beware, as Card.all will load all card records into memory, which gets more inefficient the more objects we are talking about.
p
poramo

What about to do:

rand_record = Model.find(Model.pluck(:id).sample)

For me is much clear


r
rld

I try this of Sam's example on my App using rails 4.2.8 of Benchmark( I put 1..Category.count for random, because if the random takes a 0 it will produce an error(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound: Couldn't find Category with 'id'=0)) and the mine was:

 def random1
2.4.1 :071?>   Category.find(rand(1..Category.count))
2.4.1 :072?>   end
 => :random1
2.4.1 :073 > def random2
2.4.1 :074?>    Category.offset(rand(1..Category.count))
2.4.1 :075?>   end
 => :random2
2.4.1 :076 > def random3
2.4.1 :077?>   Category.offset(rand(1..Category.count)).limit(rand(1..3))
2.4.1 :078?>   end
 => :random3
2.4.1 :079 > def random4
2.4.1 :080?>    Category.pluck(rand(1..Category.count))
2.4.1 :081?>
2.4.1 :082 >     end
 => :random4
2.4.1 :083 > n = 100
 => 100
2.4.1 :084 > Benchmark.bm(7) do |x|
2.4.1 :085 >     x.report("find") { n.times {|i| random1 } }
2.4.1 :086?>   x.report("offset") { n.times {|i| random2 } }
2.4.1 :087?>   x.report("offset_limit") { n.times {|i| random3 } }
2.4.1 :088?>   x.report("pluck") { n.times {|i| random4 } }
2.4.1 :089?>   end

                  user      system      total     real
find            0.070000   0.010000   0.080000 (0.118553)
offset          0.040000   0.010000   0.050000 (0.059276)
offset_limit    0.050000   0.000000   0.050000 (0.060849)
pluck           0.070000   0.020000   0.090000 (0.099065)

L
Linh Dam

.order('RANDOM()').limit(limit) looks neat but is slow for large tables because it needs to fetch and sort all rows even if limit is 1 (internally in database but not in Rails). I'm not sure about MySQL but this happens in Postgres. More explanation in here and here.

One solution for large tables is .from("products TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM(0.5)") where 0.5 means 0.5%. However, I find this solution is still slow if you have WHERE conditions that filter out a lot of rows. I guess it's because TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM(0.5) fetch all rows before WHERE conditions apply.

Another solution for large tables (but not very random) is:

products_scope.limit(sample_size).sample(limit)

where sample_size can be 100 (but not too large otherwise it's slow and consumes a lot of memory), and limit can be 1. Note that although this is fast but it's not really random, it's random within sample_size records only.

PS: Benchmark results in answers above are not reliable (at least in Postgres) because some DB queries running at 2nd time can be significantly faster than running at 1st time, thanks to DB cache. And unfortunately there is no easy way to disable cache in Postgres to make these benchmarks reliable.


D
Damien Roche

Along with using RANDOM(), you can also throw this into a scope:

class Thing
  scope :random, -> (limit = 1) {
    order('RANDOM()').
    limit(limit)
  }
end

Or, if you don't fancy that as a scope, just throw it into a class method. Now Thing.random works along with Thing.random(n).


D
Dragonn steve

You can get array of all ids and then return random element with sample method.

Model.ids.sample

D
Dorian

If you want to run benchmarks on your database of choice, here is a template:

gem 'activerecord', git: 'https://github.com/rails/rails'
gem 'sqlite3'
gem 'benchmark'

require 'active_record'
require 'benchmark'

ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(adapter: 'sqlite3', database: ':memory:')

ActiveRecord::Schema.define do
  create_table :users
end

class User < ActiveRecord::Base
  def self.sample_random
    order('RANDOM()').first
  end

  def self.sample_pluck_id_sample
    find(pluck(:id).sample)
  end

  def self.sample_all_sample
    all.sample
  end

  def self.sample_offset_rand_count
    offset(rand(count)).first
  end
end

USERS_COUNTS = [1000, 10_000, 100_000, 1_000_000]
N = 100

USERS_COUNTS.each do |count|
  puts "Creating #{count} users"

  User.insert_all((1..count).map { |id| { id: id } })

  Benchmark.bm do |x|
    x.report("sample_random") { N.times { User.sample_random } }
    x.report("sample_offset_rand_count") { N.times { User.sample_offset_rand_count } }
    if count < 10_000
      x.report("sample_pluck_id_sample") { N.times { User.sample_pluck_id_sample } }
      x.report("sample_all_sample") { N.times { User.sample_all_sample } }
    end
  end

  puts "Deleting #{User.count} users"

  User.delete_all
end

j
jgomo3

Depending of the meaning of "random" and what you actually want to do, take could be enough.

By the "meaning" of random I mean:

Do you mean give me any element I don't care it's position? then it is enough.

Now, if you mean "give me any element with a fair probability that repeated experiments will give me different elements from the set" then, force the "Luck" with any of the methods mentioned in the other answers.

Example, for testing, sample data could have been created randomly anyways, so take is more than enough, and to be honest, even first.

https://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#take