Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The only thing you're adding to the query is a second SORT step, so it > shouldn't require any more time/memory than the query's first SORT > did.
Interesting -- I wonder if it would be possible for the optimizer to detect this and avoid the redundant inner sort ... (/me muses to himself) -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
