From: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clarify the ordering guarantees in combining queries (or lack thereof) |
Date: | 2022-07-14 08:16:10 |
Message-ID: | CADT4RqCGMsRpW-76yhnzxJokjgOuo-faNu68Vdq4Lf3AKWPybg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
>> I was trying to understand what - if any - are the guarantees with
regards to ordering for combining queries (UNION/UNION ALL/...). From this
message[1], it seems that UNION ALL does preserve the ordering of the
operand queries, whereas UNION does not (presumably neither do INTERSECT,
INTERSECT ALL, EXCEPT and EXCEPT ALL).
>>
>> The documentation[2] makes no mention of this, I'd suggest adding a note
clarifying this.
>
> If you want ordered output use ORDER BY.
I don't see how that could be done. Consider the following:
(SELECT id FROM data ORDER BY id)
UNION ALL
(SELECT id FROM data ORDER BY id DESC);
If there's a guarantee that UNION ALL preserves ordering - as Tom seems to
indicate in the thread quoted above - then the above works. If there's no
such guarantee, then AFAIK the above can't be rewritten; putting the ORDER
BY outside - on the results of the UNION ALL - would order all results
rather than preserving each resultset's ordering.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26825.1064858799@sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-union.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pantelis Theodosiou | 2022-07-14 10:22:43 | Re: Clarify the ordering guarantees in combining queries (or lack thereof) |
Previous Message | ideriha.takeshi@fujitsu.com | 2022-07-14 02:41:45 | RE: No documentation exists about ecpg ORACLE comptaible mode |