Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B401337B4E for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:01:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60137-02 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:01:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.9]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E651337B39 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:01:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MSpj3-1PQN1f1upp-00SVmD; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:01:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4C9AD104.2030904@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:01:08 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gnuoytr@rcn.com CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Useless sort by References: <12103.1284389088@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4C8E4982.70004@gmail.com> <14518.1284396487@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20100922230531.ALE43726@ms14.lnh.mail.rcn.net> In-Reply-To: <20100922230531.ALE43726@ms14.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:yJwwv9csu95n9A+jDFP9RZeG07J5C1Xxd47Aca2HSFw Kx+gHlTMEy1SgXc++Xb2Zf6r0rF+zFAL/UtGsVlkyhOX6an605 Un/QYcedkmongdQUPRDow0h0mF090vJjcEI2nY998W7zaauedF yFV0cFpRyuZZezIa84tZvsYcnWvUK/0tolwNcS9a07UimIW0+Z ihxhBguaW/qK62l4jo2jnuoLjl9FEmLKfouFa0GBeA= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201009/148 X-Sequence-Number: 40351 gnuoytr@rcn.com wrote: > Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder. The RM has no need for order; it's set based. I've dabbled in PG for some time, and my sense is increasingly that PG developers are truly code oriented, not database (set) oriented. > I can't tell if you meant for this to be insulting or my reading it that way is wrong, but it certainly wasn't put in a helpful tone. Let me summarize for you. You've been told that putting ORDER BY into a view is a generally poor idea anyway, that it's better to find ways avoid this class of concern altogether. There are significant non-obvious technical challenges behind actually implementing the behavior you'd like to see; the concerns raised by Tom and Maciek make your idea impractical even if it were desired. And for every person like yourself who'd see the benefit you're looking for, there are far more that would find a change in this area a major problem. The concerns around breakage due to assumed but not required aspects of the relational model are the ones the users of the software will be confused by, not the developers of it. You have the classification wrong; the feedback you've gotten here is from the developers being user oriented, not theory oriented or code oriented. -- Greg Smith, 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us Author, "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance" Pre-ordering at: https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book