X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C524F8B9B1F
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:29:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 06901-08
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.249.74])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 799B68B9E8E
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 20868 invoked by uid 500); 23 Feb 2005 19:44:12 -0000
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:44:12 -0600
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL?= Robert <robert.koepferl@sonorys.at>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: VIEW / ORDER BY + UNION
Message-ID: <20050223194412.GA20776@wolff.to>
Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL?= Robert
	<robert.koepferl@sonorys.at>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <ED4E30DD9C43D5118DFB00508BBBA76EB165DC@neptun.sonorys.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ED4E30DD9C43D5118DFB00508BBBA76EB165DC@neptun.sonorys.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.322 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, URIBL_SBL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200502/278
X-Sequence-Number: 20388

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 19:33:07 +0100,
  KÖPFERL Robert <robert.koepferl@sonorys.at> wrote:
> 
> Otherwise you can treat this as a subselect and suround it with another
> select.
> 
> Like
> select * from (<here goes your ex.>) order by orderno;

That is still a bad idea in this case. He will end up scanning the table
three times to pick up the three days and there will be a sort for each
union to remove duplicates (which there shouldn't be if orderno is a
candidate key).

> 
> C:\> -----Original Message-----
> C:\> From: Bruno Wolff III [mailto:bruno@wolff.to]
> C:\> Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2005 18:20
> C:\> To: WeiShang
> C:\> Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> C:\> Subject: Re: [SQL] VIEW / ORDER BY + UNION
> C:\> 
> C:\> 
> C:\> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 23:46:59 +0800,
> C:\>   WeiShang <thanks@verymuch.com> wrote:
> C:\> > Hi, I have created a view like this :
> C:\> > 
> C:\> > CREATE VIEW v1 AS (SELECT orderno,weekday,time FROM t1,t2 where
> C:\> > t1.orderno=t2.orderno);
> C:\> > 
> C:\> > if I create a SQL statment:
> C:\> > 
> C:\> > (SELECT orderno FROM v1 WHERE weekday='MON' ORDER BY orderno)
> C:\> > UNION
> C:\> > (SELECT orderno FROM v1 WHERE weekday='WED' ORDER BY orderno)
> C:\> > UNION
> C:\> > (SELECT orderno FROM v1 WHERE weekday='FRI' ORDER BY orderno);
> C:\> > 
> C:\> > Will the whole result will be sorted by the field orderno?
> C:\> 
> C:\> If this isn't a made up example, you don't want to do this. You
> C:\> should use IN or OR to select records corresponding to the days
> C:\> of interest and then use ORDER BY to select the ordering.
> C:\> 
> C:\> ---------------------------(end of 
> C:\> broadcast)---------------------------
> C:\> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> C:\> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org