Received: from Stimpy.netroedge.com (IDENT:phil@Stimpy.netroedge.com [206.58.104.66]) by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5U2UW109018 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from phil@localhost) by Stimpy.netroedge.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA03416; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:35:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:35:08 -0700 From: phil@Stimpy.netroedge.com To: Byron Nikolaidis , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Inverted result set, why? Message-ID: <20000629193508.I7690@Stimpy.netroedge.com> References: <200006271130.GAA01884@eperke.themail.com> <003901bfe238$f2603320$6401a8c0@byron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <003901bfe238$f2603320$6401a8c0@byron>; from byron.nikolaidis@home.com on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:14:39PM -0400 X-Archive-Number: 200006/135 On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:14:39PM -0400, Byron Nikolaidis wrote: > If you want a specific order based on the time, you could add a timestamp > field to the table that would default to the current time when the record > was inserted (see create table...default...) . Then you can "order by" on > the timestamp, either ascending or descending if desired. That's exactly right. Most tables I deal with contain at least a timestamp field and a creator field (aka the source of the data). In general, if you think you'll need it, then you should store it. Storage space is realitively cheap. Good luck! Phil -- Philip Edelbrock -- IS Manager -- Edge Design, Corvallis, OR phil@netroedge.com -- http://www.netroedge.com/~phil PGP F16: 01 D2 FD 01 B5 46 F4 F0 3A 8B 9D 7E 14 7F FB 7A