Well, it's unfortunate that you feel that way, because SQL Server handles it correctly.
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Bupp Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> select * from customer order by customer_id, first_name; > >> [ where customer_id is the primary key ] > > > However you do have a point. In this case I don't think postgres even > > considers using the index. > > It will not, since the index does not appear to provide the correct sort > order. > > > However I'm not sure I see a lot of cases where this would come up. > > Yes, that's the real crux of the matter. Should the optimizer spend > cycles on *every* query to detect cases where the user has written > useless sort keys? I've got grave doubts that it's a win. ISTM such > an optimization penalizes the folk who write their queries well to > benefit those who are careless. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
