On 02/04/2013 18:34, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
My guess is that it's the sort avoidance code that somehow gets confused into thinking the result is already in the correct order and that the sorting could be skipped.
My hunch is that it might also have to do with the fact that the ITEM_USAGE table has a composite primary key. I've now found two queries where this particular table sorts wrongly, but no other cases.
Anybody got any thoughts whether this might be a factor? -- John English
