From: | John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | George Pavlov <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, MicroUser <a(dot)shafar(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ORDER BY |
Date: | 2006-11-16 06:43:40 |
Message-ID: | 455C089C.50202@wardbrook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alternative options for what they're worth - you'd have to explain to
see how efficient they are
select id, name from (
select lower(name) as sortkey, id, name from table where name != 'Other'
union
select 'zzzzz' as sortkey, id, name from table where name = 'Other'
) as t
order by sortkey
select id, name from (
select case when name='Other' then 'zzzzz' else lower(name) end as
sortkey, id, name from table
) as t
order by sortkey
Notice that the sort will be case insensitive in these examples which
may be something that you also want.
John
George Pavlov wrote:
>> For larger tables, you may have to resort to a
>> union:
>>
>> select * from foo where name != 'Other' order by name
>> union
>> select * from foo where name = 'Other'
>
> Alas, this suggestion is wrong on two counts: (a) UNION expects a single
> ORDER BY that applies to the whole recordset and which has to come at
> the end; (b) UNION re-sorts anyway (it needs to eliminate the dupes) --
> maybe you are thinking UNION ALL? So, to follow your advice he may want
> a query like this, although it seems quite silly and there still isn't
> an ironclad guarantee re. the final result sorting:
>
> select * from
> (select * from foo where name != 'Other' order by name) x
> union all
> select * from foo where name = 'Other'
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-16 06:54:37 | Re: Recovering deleted or updated rows |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-16 06:26:03 | Re: schema rename - is analyze necessary? |