On Friday, October 8, 2010, Michael Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.  Do we >> >> > still have that?  Although in this case it seems we had an ORDER BY, >> >> > just not a sufficienly discriminating one.  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! >
D'oh! It wouldn't have been confusing had I looked this morning instead of last night. No worries. -- Graham Binns http://grahambinns.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
