Message-ID: <BAY14-DAV12DCBD187D6EAEDE838034D7470@phx.gbl>
Reply-To: <gpatnude@hotmail.com>
From: "Greg Patnude" <gpatnude@hotmail.com>
To: "'Chris Browne'" <cbbrowne@acm.org>, <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: New record position
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:42:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcU1hjMm6SbMQMoeQKSRgZ9E1/CPbwAilkvA
In-Reply-To: <60br90spl0.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>

There's a difference between "natural" order (the location in the database
or on disk) and "record" order (the order specified by the primary key)... 


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Browne
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:04 PM
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] New record position

lucas@presserv.org writes:
> Why it? I can't undestand why the new record location was change.
Shouldn't it
> apper at the LAST record???
> What need I do??

SQL only imposes an order on the return set if you add an "ORDER BY"
clause.

You can't expect any particular order to either recur or NOT recur
unless you have specifically requested a particular ordering.

There's no bug; just use ORDER BY if you need to, and, if you don't,
make sure you don't expect any particular ordering...
-- 
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spiritual.html
"The  present  need for  security  products far exceeds  the number of
individuals    capable of    designing  secure  systems. Consequently,
industry  has resorted to  employing folks  and purchasing "solutions"
from vendors that shouldn't be let near a project involving securing a
system."  -- Lucky Green

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org