Whoooooops. Wrong list. *sigh* At least there's some variety - it's not Savoynet this time.
Disregard the mad guy in the corner, he's not saying anything useful anyway... ChrisA On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Douglas Eric <sekk...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I suggest to change this behavior. If one makes a SELECT statement without >> any ORDER BY, it would be >> clever to automatically sort by the first primary key found in the query, if >> any. >> The present behavior would still be used in case of queries without any >> primary key fields. > > This would require that work be done without text commanding it, which > is IMHO a bad idea. Generally, SQL follows the principle that more > text --> more work: compare SELECT and SELECT DISTINCT (it's more work > to look for duplicates), VACUUM and VACUUM ANALYZE, etc, etc. The > default state is to do the least work that makes sense. (There are > exceptions - UNION ought to be UNION DISTINCT, versus UNION ALL to > reduce the work done - but this is the general rule.) > > Often, a query is done with genuine disregard for order. If you're > going to take the results of the query and stuff them into a > hashtable, you don't care what order they come up in. Why have the > database sort them? Let 'em come in the easiest order possible. > > ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
