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 the > same query under MSSQL Server 2000, I get the exact opposite result > regarding the order of (NULL)s and (non-NULL) values. They are listed at the > very beginning of the query result.
The spec basically says (IIRC) that implementations must either treat all nulls as greater than all non-nulls for ordering or less than all non-nulls for ordering, but that different implementations may choose different choices. I think the most recent version (at least) provides an option to specify which way to handle nulls, but we don't support that as far as I know. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly