From: | Elías David <elias(dot)moreno(dot)tec(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Default order of select datname from pg_database |
Date: | 2014-04-19 16:39:31 |
Message-ID: | CANNE3r0-urWBDryg--NQSP7Bt_AAN5n0ug+PTrAtxFUadikMxQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Ah... I see, that clarifies things. Thank you all for your responses!
All started because I looked a script that is used in our company to backup
databases and it seemed odd that the query didn't use an order by sentence
which would be helpful, that way I could anticipate when a particular
database is going to be backed up, it's easy to fix though so no issues
there.
Again thank you all
Best regards
On Apr 19, 2014 10:47 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?RWzDrWFzIERhdmlk?= <elias(dot)moreno(dot)tec(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > By any change, does the following query have an "order by" by default
> when
> > omitted?:
>
> > select datname from pg_database;
>
> No. No SQL query ever has a "default" order by.
>
> > I executed that query against one of my servers and while looking at the
> > names it seems complety random, the order is always the same, for
> instance:
>
> An unqualified query is typically going to result in a sequential scan
> of the table, so what you're seeing is the current physical order of the
> tuples. This might change after adding/deleting/changing the properties
> of a database.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oscar Calderon | 2014-04-21 18:45:02 | PostgreSQL isn't enough scalable as Oracle or DB2 |
Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2014-04-19 15:44:51 | Re: Default order of select datname from pg_database |