From: "Anders Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And by the way, in a UNION, there is no need to put parenteses around
> the unioned queries in the general case. So
> (SELECT .) UNION (SELECT) [ORDER BY ]
> Is the same as
> SELECT . UNION SELECT [ORDER BY ]
> I say in the gene
As I stated before, my guess that duplicates are removed is because the
SELECT is handled like
one part of a UNION (I'll have a look at the code later to check if this
is the case). Really,
a UNION should consist of two or more SELECTs, so this is not the
expected behaviour. The way this REALLY
> I find by experiment that
> (select * from FOO order by a desc limit 10) order by a;
> removes duplicates, but, if I drop the second order clause,
> (select * from FOO order by a desc limit 10);
> duplicates are retained.
>
> Why is the first a union, but not the second? Just curious.
On ht
curious.
> From: "Keith C. Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:27:38 -0400
> Subject: Re: first LIMIT then ORDER
> On 23 Apr 2004 at 7:23, Bill Easton wrote:
> > The last suggestion is useful when you do care wh
On 23 Apr 2004 at 7:23, Bill Easton wrote:
> The last suggestion is useful when you do care which entries you get,
> as you can use one order for limit and another for presentation. For
> example, if you'd like the LAST 10 rows, but sorted in FORWARD order,
> you can use something like
>
> (s
it 10) order by version;
And I thought I'd have to wait for subqueries...
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:35:17 -0500
To: "Keith C. Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Paul DuBois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: first LIMIT then ORDER
At 11:21 -0400 4/22/04, Keit
At 11:21 -0400 4/22/04, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
On 22 Apr 2004 at 12:31, Johan Hook wrote:
Assuming you want to order your arbitrary selection you could
do something like:
(SELECT t.Id FROM tab t LIMIT 10)
UNION ALL
(SELECT t.Id FROM tab t WHERE 1 < 0)
ORDER BY t.Id
You don't even need to inclu
On 22 Apr 2004 at 12:31, Johan Hook wrote:
> Assuming you want to order your arbitrary selection you could
> do something like:
> (SELECT t.Id FROM tab t LIMIT 10)
> UNION ALL
> (SELECT t.Id FROM tab t WHERE 1 < 0)
> ORDER BY t.Id
You don't even need to include the dummy query. You can do a UNIO
At 11:35 +0200 4/22/04, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul DuBois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 18:51 +0200 4/21/04, Jacek Jaroczynski wrote:
Is there possibility to first LIMIT and then ORDER records?
Not with a single SELECT. ORDER BY occurs before LIMIT.
You could u
Assuming you want to order your arbitrary selection you could
do something like:
(SELECT t.Id FROM tab t LIMIT 10)
UNION ALL
(SELECT t.Id FROM tab t WHERE 1 < 0)
ORDER BY t.Id
/Johan
Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul DuBois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 18:51 +0200 4/21/0
At 18:51 +0200 4/21/04, Jacek Jaroczynski wrote:
Is there possibility to first LIMIT and then ORDER records?
Not with a single SELECT. ORDER BY occurs before LIMIT.
You could use LIMIT and select into a temporary table, then
select from the temporary table with ORDER BY.
Using simple query I can
11 matches
Mail list logo
