| From: | "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] ORDER BY and nulls (fwd) |
| Date: | 1998-01-12 03:06:27 |
| Message-ID: | 34B988B3.418AB632@sable.krasnoyarsk.su |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Is this fixed yet?
>
> Forwarded message:
> > I seem to recall that someone here said that because of the way comparisons
> > are done, in an ORDER-BY query, the NULLs will always come up last.
> >
> > It seems to have another effect, too: if I do a SELECT ... ORDER BY
> > col1,col2 - and the col1 attribute has nulls, the rows with the nulls don't
> > get sorted at all.
> >
> > Apparently, this is because the rows which have NULL in the col1 attribute
> > are not considered to have an equal value in col1, which is the requirement
> > for sorting on col2 - or am I missing something here?
I hope to fix this after Feb 1 (seems easy to do).
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-01-12 04:52:01 | Re: triggers regression tests. |
| Previous Message | Darren King | 1998-01-12 02:04:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Max size of data types and tuples. (fwd) |