On 08/22/2012 08:36 AM, Denis Kolesnik wrote:
I have now VERY strong argument to consider it is as a bug:
if there a understandable for SQL language sequence which sorts
in other fashion when adding "LIMIT".
Underspecified sorts can have unstable results, that's allowed by the
spec and is a r
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> Denis Kolesnik wrote:
>> and even sorting by id:
>> select id, str_last_name from tbl_owners_individual where id in
>> (83,175,111,1) order by str_last_name;
>>
>> id |str_last_name
>> -+--
>> 83 | GX
>> 175 | GX
>>
Denis Kolesnik wrote:
> I have now VERY strong argument to consider it is as a bug:
No, you appear to have very strong feelings about it, but you are
not making an argument that holds water.
> if there a understandable for SQL language sequence which sorts
> in other fashion when adding "LIM
I have now VERY strong argument to consider it is as a bug:
if there a understandable for SQL language sequence which sorts
in other fashion when adding "LIMIT".
I did try the same with a last name starting with "G" (there also more
than one entry with identical surnames) and it worked ok(the res
