| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Emanuel Calvo Franco <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgresql Forums <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: limit-offset different result sets with same query |
| Date: | 2009-05-09 17:24:20 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150905091024u5d242cceu43ef5700dabe36b5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:10:18PM -0300, Emanuel Calvo Franco wrote:
>> > Hi all.
>> >
>> > I'll make this faster.
>> >
>> > I hace this table and this function:
>>
>> You should only ever assume that your SELECT's output will have a
>> particular ordering when you include an ORDER BY clause that actually
>> specifies the order well enough :)
>
> Yeah, we went over this on the spanish list, turned out that I couldn't
> remember about syncscan :-)
I like the new behavior. It really encourages proper use of order by,
because the natural ordering results are effectively randomized. A
class of subtle bugs has been made obvious. :)
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-09 17:28:03 | Re: limit-offset different result sets with same query |
| Previous Message | Emanuel Calvo Franco | 2009-05-09 15:35:56 | Re: limit-offset different result sets with same query |