Timeline for get weighted random item
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2019 at 12:35 | comment | added | Patrick Klug | +1 Just a word of caution to anyone using this: weightFunc should return a positive number as the above method won't work with negative weights. | |
| S Nov 7, 2018 at 9:18 | history | suggested | Ghost4Man | CC BY-SA 4.0 | improved formatting and marked code block as C# |
| Nov 6, 2018 at 20:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 7, 2018 at 9:18 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2018 at 10:10 | comment | added | Deduplicator | Nice solution if you really only have to choose once. Otherwise, doing the prep-work for the solution in the first answer once is far more efficient. | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 8:23 | comment | added | Jim Yarbro | I just wanted to say I've come back to this thread 3 or 4 times in the last couple years to use this method. This method has repeatedly succeeded in providing the answers I need quickly enough for my purposes. I wish I could upvote this answer every time I came back to use it. | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 19:33 | comment | added | Vivin Paliath | Should be the accepted answer imo. I like this better than the "interval" and "repeated entry" approach. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 7:28 | comment | added | Nevermind | @Jean-Bernard Pellerin I did, and it is actually faster on large lists. Unless you use cryptographically strong random generator (-8 | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 22:59 | comment | added | Jean-Bernard Pellerin | I would benchmark this before assuming it's better just because it iterates once. Generating just as many random values isn't exactly fast either. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 11:38 | history | answered | Nevermind | CC BY-SA 3.0 |