pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedInconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Inconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause
@ 2023-12-08 04:05 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: PG Doc comments form @ 2023-12-08 04:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: duffieldzane@gmail.com
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-select.html
Description:
At the top of the sql-select page it says
"If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned in whatever order the
system finds fastest to produce."
but later it says
"Optionally one can add the key word ASC (ascending) or DESC (descending)
after any expression in the ORDER BY clause. If not specified, ASC is
assumed by default."
The first statement implies that you cannot rely on the default ordering,
but the second implies that you can (and it will be ASC).
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Inconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause
@ 2023-12-08 09:56 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2023-12-08 09:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: duffieldzane@gmail.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 22:49, PG Doc comments form
<noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-select.html
> Description:
>
> At the top of the sql-select page it says
>
> "If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned in whatever order the
> system finds fastest to produce."
>
> but later it says
>
> "Optionally one can add the key word ASC (ascending) or DESC (descending)
> after any expression in the ORDER BY clause. If not specified, ASC is
> assumed by default."
>
> The first statement implies that you cannot rely on the default ordering,
> but the second implies that you can (and it will be ASC).
Perhaps you're going wrong in the last sentence in the latter fragment
where it says "If not specified". This is talking about ASC/DESC
rather than the ORDER BY.
Maybe that could be made more clear. Something like "If ASC or DESC is
not specified, ASC is assumed by default".
Would that make it more clear?
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Inconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause
@ 2023-12-08 10:18 Zane Duffield <duffieldzane@gmail.com>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Zane Duffield @ 2023-12-08 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Ah, I just misread it. I think it's perfectly clear actually, I just went there looking for the default order (ASC/DESC) and skimmed the first line about ORDER BY. I must have interpreted "whatever order" to mean "whichever orientation of ordering".
Sorry about that.
Zane
________________________________
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:56:48 PM
To: duffieldzane@gmail.com <duffieldzane@gmail.com>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 22:49, PG Doc comments form
<noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-select.html
> Description:
>
> At the top of the sql-select page it says
>
> "If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned in whatever order the
> system finds fastest to produce."
>
> but later it says
>
> "Optionally one can add the key word ASC (ascending) or DESC (descending)
> after any expression in the ORDER BY clause. If not specified, ASC is
> assumed by default."
>
> The first statement implies that you cannot rely on the default ordering,
> but the second implies that you can (and it will be ASC).
Perhaps you're going wrong in the last sentence in the latter fragment
where it says "If not specified". This is talking about ASC/DESC
rather than the ORDER BY.
Maybe that could be made more clear. Something like "If ASC or DESC is
not specified, ASC is assumed by default".
Would that make it more clear?
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-12-08 10:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-12-08 04:05 Inconsistent information on default ordering for ORDER BY clause PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2023-12-08 09:56 ` David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2023-12-08 10:18 ` Zane Duffield <duffieldzane@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox