Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 16:23:20 -0400,
Wei Weng [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 11:59:15 -0400,
Wei Weng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do I write that?
SELECT Parent FROM Channels ORDER BY Parent IS NULL, Parent ASC;
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 16:23:20 -0400,
Wei Weng [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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
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.
