| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | okijhhyu <okijhhyu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sort bug |
| Date: | 2022-12-14 10:28:09 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEHdWfV-cdp5nbWxvD_zvZEQEg_omqmJ-25YEBarVrBd2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> Good morning, dear friends.
>
> In sorting by DESC null in up and ASC ‘’ in up, why them not near?
>
> Respectfully yours, okijhhyu
NULLS are not empty values but undefined values. Nevertheless, in
PostgreSQL there is the following default order for their sorting: "By
default, null values sort as if larger than any non-null value; that
is, NULLS FIRST is the default for DESC order, and NULLS LAST
otherwise." (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-order.html)
Nulls ordering can be changed by. The NULLS FIRST and NULLS LAST
options can be used to determine whether nulls appear before or after
non-null values in the sort ordering.
Do you see this or something contrary to?
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-12-14 12:54:11 | Re: BUG #17720: pg_dump creates a dump with primary key that cannot be restored, when specifying 'using index ...' |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2022-12-14 10:22:58 | Re: Sort bug |