From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Unexpected sort order. |
Date: | 2006-11-27 20:44:27 |
Message-ID: | ekfin7$2usr$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Shouldn't the results of this query shown here been sorted by "b" rather than by "a"?
I would have thought since "order by b" is in the outer sql statement it would have
been the one the final result gets ordered by.
li=# select * from (select (random()*10)::int as a, (random()*10)::int as b from generate_series(1,10) order by a) as x order by b;
a | b
---+----
0 | 8
1 | 10
3 | 4
4 | 8
5 | 1
5 | 9
6 | 4
6 | 5
8 | 4
9 | 0
(10 rows)
Changing the constant from 10 to 11 in either but not both of the
places produces results I would have expected; as do many other ways of
rewriting the query.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems the way I wrote the query creates
some confusion of which of the two similar expressions with random()
it's sorting by.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-11-27 21:44:22 | Re: Unexpected sort order. |
Previous Message | Pete Deffendol | 2006-11-27 20:28:08 | BUG #2787: postgresql-jdbc-8.1.407 won't install on RHEL4 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2006-11-27 20:52:36 | Re: IS it a good practice to use SERIAL as Primary Key? |
Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2006-11-27 20:38:00 | Re: IS it a good practice to use SERIAL as Primary Key? |