2009/5/8 David Fetter <da...@fetter.org>:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:10:18PM -0300, Emanuel Calvo Franco wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I'll make this faster.
>>
>> I hace this table and this function:
>
> You should only ever assume that your SELECT's output will have a
> particular ordering when you include an ORDER BY clause that actually
> specifies the order well enough :)
>
I test it in the first time :)
With the 'order by' it works well, but in 'theory' if you
run sequentially and physically a table, you expect obtain the same
results with a same query.
There is no indexes that can intersect the results or inherits
tables.
But with the option synchronize_seqscans in off, it works like
i expected :)
i will study a bit more this option on monday (like always).
--
Emanuel Calvo Franco
Sumate al ARPUG !
( www.arpug.com.ar)
ArPUG / AOSUG Member
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
