Re: Result of ORDER-BY

> See the other remark in this thread about GROUP BY and ORDER BY. Note
> that GROUP BY used to cause ORDER BY every time, because it was always
> implemented with a sort. That hasn't been true for several releases,
> and if you're relying on that side effect it could be the cause of
> this, although it's pretty surprising that you still got A, B, C in
> that case. In any case, you definitely need an ORDER BY category
> here, too. Does that make a difference?
>
> You might also want to look at your collation. Sort orders are
> notorious for being surprising across collations. What's this one?

Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, I tried ORDER BY, and the result
is the same.

I am not sure about collations; I guess I will have to read up on this
subject.