On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:06:30 -0500, Edwin Grubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. ÃÂ Do we > >> > still have that? ÃÂ Although in this case it seems we had an ORDER BY, > >> > just not a sufficienly discriminating one. ÃÂ 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()".
Yes, exactly. Sorry if I was confusing! Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
