Douglas Eric <sekk...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the right list to discuss this, but, I have a > suggestion: > > ORDER BY clause, as defined in the SELECT documentation says: > > "If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned in whatever order the system > finds fastest to produce" > > This order is usually not wanted, as it is not predictable. I believe many > people would expect the order of rows > returned in this case, to be ordered as the primary key of the table, or the > same order the rows were inserted. > > I suggest to change this behavior. If one makes a SELECT statement without any > ORDER BY, it would be > clever to automatically sort by the first primary key found in the query, if > any.
No. Since 8.3 (IIRC) we have a feature called 'concurrent seq. scan', see: http://j-davis.com/postgresql/83v82_scans.html Your suggestion can't work in this way. That's only one problem, there are more. Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
