On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:30:17PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 18:03 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:30:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I didn't consider that. Is there a reason the regression tests assume > > > > the results will be returned in a certain order (or a consistent order)? > > > > > > We use diff as the checking tool. > > > > Doesn't the SQL spec specifically state that the only time you'll get > > results in a deterministic order is if you use ORDER BY? Assuming > > otherwise seems a bad idea (though at least in the case of testing it > > makes the test more strenuous rather than less...) > > True, that was my reasoning when I proposed synchronized scanning. > > Keep in mind that this is a criticism of only the regression tests, not > the RDBMS itself. > > I don't know much about the regression tests, so maybe it's impractical > to not assume consistent order. I'm sure the developers will vote one > way or the other. I hate to throw away a potential performance boost, > but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of > regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere.
Certainly, but I suspect it's just a matter of adding ORDER BY to everything, which just about anyone (even myself!) should be able to do. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
