On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:48:48PM -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Wei Weng wrote: > > > In the following query > > > > SELECT Parent FROM Channels ORDER BY Parent ASC; > > > > If I have a couple of (NULL)s in the field [Parent], they will be listed at > > the bottom of the query result. > > > > Is it because PostgreSQL considers (NULL) as the biggest value? If I run the > > same query under MSSQL Server 2000, I get the exact opposite result > > regarding the order of (NULL)s and (non-NULL) values. They are listed at the > > very beginning of the query result.
you could try to use COALESCE to treat NULLs as either a minimal or maximal value so that your ordering is correct : SELECT Parent FROM Channels ORDER BY COALESCE(Parent, -1) ASC; to treat NULLs as -1 for example hth Jerome Alet ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
