Boyd E. Hemphill wrote:
To all who answered thank you. This answer below is the one that I can
use to convince him what he proposes is not necessarily safe.
I almost always have a timestamp column immediately after my
auto_increment'ed primary key column which I use for ordering by
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and that the result is random, except when some ordering is
specified in the SQL statement.
Who is right? Is this behavior specified by ANSI or ISO?
Best
E. Hemphill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/03/2004 01:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:urban myth?
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and that the result
From: Boyd E. Hemphill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and that the result is random, except when some ordering is
specified in the SQL statement.
Who is
Yes it is a myth.
The records will come back in the same order IF there have been not
inserts and deletes. Depends on the database product to.
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 10:39, Boyd E. Hemphill wrote:
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and that the result is random, except when some ordering is
specified in the SQL statement.
Who
On Mon, 3 May 2004 12:39:48 -0500
Boyd E. Hemphill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is
a myth and that the result is random, except when some ordering is
specified in
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:39:48PM -0500, Boyd E. Hemphill wrote:
My boss says that if you do a select statement against a table the
result set always comes back in the same order. I say that this is a
myth and that the result is random, except when some ordering is
specified in the SQL
As everyone has mentioned - you should always assume the data comes back randomly -
even if the table is completely static and there have been no inserts or updates, but
it's even more subtle than that.
When you port your application to a database than allows your queries to run
multi-threaded
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the results
are in the order that the entries were inserted into the table. There is
an explanation for the order of the returned data.
bob
At 12:55 PM 5/3/2004, Garth Webb wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 10:39, Boyd E. Hemphill wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:21:56 -0500
Bob Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the
results are in the order that the entries were inserted into the
table. There is an explanation for the order of the returned data.
Conceptually, row order
It's also not in the order it was entered ( as suggested ).
Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the
results are in the order that the entries were inserted into the
table. There is an explanation for the order of the returned data.
bob
At 12:55 PM
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 11:21, Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the results
are in the order that the entries were inserted into the table. There is
an explanation for the order of the returned data.
I don't think the point of the original
Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the results
are in the order that the entries were inserted into the table. There
is an explanation for the order of the returned data.
snip
Apparently not random, but not in the order inserted either. Consider:
]
Subject:Re: urban myth?
It's also not in the order it was entered ( as suggested ).
Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the
results are in the order that the entries were inserted into the
table. There is an explanation for the order
-2287
M: (713) 252-4688
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 12:57 PM
To: Bob Ramsey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: urban myth?
Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the
results
-4688
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 12:57 PM
To: Bob Ramsey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: urban myth?
Bob Ramsey wrote:
Ah, but the ordering is not random. As your example has it, the
results
are in the order
17 matches
Mail list logo
