On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Michael Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:53:58 +0100, Graham Binns <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thursday, October 7, 2010, Michael Hudson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Back in the SQLObject days we had a hack that would add "ORDER BY >> > random()" to any query that didn't have an ORDER BY already. Â Do we >> > still have that? Â Although in this case it seems we had an ORDER BY, >> > just not a sufficienly discriminating one. Â Could you add ", random()" >> > to any query that does have an ORDER BY? >> > >> >> Wouldn't that just break everything that relied on a specific ordering? > > Not if the ordering was already specific enough to be unambiguous, and > if it's not specific enough to be unambiguous, it's a timebomb. > > Cheers, > mwh
I think the confusion here is that Graham thinks you are suggesting replacing "ORDER BY name" with "ORDER BY random()", but you are actually suggesting that we append it, so "ORDER BY name" becomes "ORDER BY name, random()". -Edwin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
