Re: ORDER BY <field not in return list>

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ORDER BY <field not in return list>
Date: 2005-07-25 22:25:28
Message-ID: 20050725192419.V54567@svr1.postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 19:08 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 18:11 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>> Just curious as to whether or not a warning or something should be issued
>>>> in a case like:
>>>>
>>>> SELECT c.*
>>>> FROM company c, company_summary cs
>>>> WHERE c.id = cs.id
>>>> AND cs.detail = 'test'
>>>> ORDER BY cs.fullname;
>>>
>>> Seems like it should work. Is it not returning in fullname order in
>>> your tests?
>>
>> Full name isn't a field in the results, so how would it be ORDERing based
>> on it? fullname is a field in the table being joined in order to restrict
>> the results to just those with cs.detail = 'test' ... but company itself
>> doesn't have a field fullname ...
>
> I'm still not seeing the problem. cs.fullname is in the product of the
> join, and you can order the result thereby, and not return the column.

That's what I was missing ... "the product of the join" ... I was seeing
the end result as being all that an ORDER BY had to work with, vs the JOIN
of all the tables ...

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mark 2005-07-25 22:54:38 Re: ORDER BY <field not in return list>
Previous Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2005-07-25 22:22:54 Re: ORDER BY <field not in return list>