Kirk Wolak <wol...@gmail.com> writes: > I have some converted code that uses this syntax.
Seems kinda dumb, but ...
> The solution is to remove the ORDER BY NULL. [since that is not
> sortable, should it be ignored?]
> This does NOT SHOW UP with 1 million rows.
I don't see it at all. Comparing your two test queries on released
branches, I see maybe 2x penalty for the ORDER BY NULL, not 30x.
(In HEAD there's only about 13% penalty.) I wonder what PG version
you are testing.
regards, tom lane
