From: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
To: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
Cc: A.M. <agentm@cmu.edu>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: order by date desc but NULLs last
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:52:44 -0600
Message-ID: <20030210185244.GA16454@wallace.ece.rice.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E47F056.DE8707E2@nsd.ca>
References: <F427C52A-3C7D-11D7-A094-0030657192DA@cmu.edu>
<20030209231204.GB11550@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
<3E47F056.DE8707E2@nsd.ca>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:32:54PM -0500, Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> Why not try the obvious first?
Because it's not always obvious ;-) Yup, if you want two kinds of order
(NULLs last, descending dates), use two order by clauses.
> order by gradedtime is null, gradedtime desc;
>
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
<a different, less elegant way to get the NULLs last>
Ross
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: reedstrm@rice.edu, jllachan@nsd.ca, agentm@cmu.edu
Subject: Re: order by date desc but NULLs last
In-Reply-To: <20030210185244.GA16454@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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