From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Eivind Kvedalen <eivindkv@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "Join" on delimeter aggregate query
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:58:51 -0500
Message-ID: <20030610135851.GB16346@wolff.to> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0306091020450.2075@fimm.ifi.uio.no>
References: <200306061003.29430.mike@nachbaur.com>
<Pine.SOL.4.51.0306072257180.25070@tva.ifi.uio.no>
<3649.1055120755@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Pine.SOL.4.51.0306091020450.2075@fimm.ifi.uio.no>
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 10:35:10 +0200,
Eivind Kvedalen <eivindkv@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Ok. What I actually had in mind was whether the optimizer would remove the
> ORDER BY clause completely or not, as it isn't used in the top-level
> SELECT query, and SQL doesn't in general guarantee ordered rows back
> unless there's an ORDER BY in the top-level SELECT (I haven't read the SQL
> standard, so I might very well be wrong here).
Allowing ordering in subselects is a feature (mostly for use with LIMIT)
and won't be removed because it isn't a top level select.
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: bruno@wolff.to, eivindkv@ifi.uio.no, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: "Join" on delimeter aggregate query
In-Reply-To: <20030610135851.GB16346@wolff.to>
* 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