I wrote this exact code in Gawk -- you're in luck. It's long partially because it preserves input order. There are probably performance enhancements that can be made.
This algorithm is correct without knowing the input size in advance. I posted a rosetta stone here about it. (I didn't post this version because it does unnecessary comparisons.)
Original thread: Submitted for your review -- random sampling in awk.
# Waterman's Algorithm R for random sampling
# by way of Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, volume 2
BEGIN {
if (!n) {
print "Usage: sample.awk -v n=[size]"
exit
}
t = n
srand()
}
NR <= n {
pool[NR] = $0
places[NR] = NR
next
}
NR > n {
t++
M = int(rand()*t) + 1
if (M <= n) {
READ_NEXT_RECORD(M)
}
}
END {
if (NR < n) {
print "sample.awk: Not enough records for sample" \
> "/dev/stderr"
exit
}
# gawk needs a numeric sort function
# since it doesn't have one, zero-pad and sort alphabetically
pad = length(NR)
for (i in pool) {
new_index = sprintf("%0" pad "d", i)
newpool[new_index] = pool[i]
}
x = asorti(newpool, ordered)
for (i = 1; i <= x; i++)
print newpool[ordered[i]]
}
function READ_NEXT_RECORD(idx) {
rec = places[idx]
delete pool[rec]
pool[NR] = $0
places[idx] = NR
}