From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Wampler <swampler(at)noao(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Postgres-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: timestamp fields and order by? |
Date: | 2010-01-06 22:13:56 |
Message-ID: | 27609.1262816036@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steve Wampler <swampler(at)noao(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Even so, though, I think it would be quite foolish to design an
>> application around the assumption that the timestamps of successive
>> insertions will be distinguishable. Put in a serial column.
> I'll do that. I was a bit surprised to see that the sort wasn't
> stable, however. Was that intentional for performance, or just
> not considered worth the effort?
I think our sort code isn't stable --- it's a quicksort which usually
isn't. But in any case the physical tuple locations aren't guaranteed
to be strictly increasing, so changing the sort code wouldn't make it
safe.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2010-01-06 23:12:56 | interesting check constraint behavior |
Previous Message | shulkae | 2010-01-06 21:03:24 | How many records to delete ? |