On 24 January 2012 09:29, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Douglas Eric wrote:
>> 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
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Douglas Eric wrote:
> 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.
> The present behavior would still be used in case of
Piling On.
NO! (not that I actually think this would ever happen anyway).
Sorting is a resource-intensive process and it should NOT be made into a
default. Besides, any kind of intelligent/implicit behavior like that ends
up being forgotten and/or changed in the future and previously worki
Douglas Eric 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 ord
Hello
2012/1/23 Douglas Eric :
> 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"
>
> T
