On 7 May 2012 08:31, rahaji...@bankofbaku.com <rahaji...@bankofbaku.com>wrote:
> Hi, I'm using Rails 3.2.1 and following through Mike Hartl's > tutorial. > > irb(main):024:0> User.first > User Load (0.6ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" LIMIT 1 > => ... > irb(main):025:0> User.last > User Load (1.0ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" ORDER BY > "users"."id" DESC LIMIT 1 > => ... > > Here's what PostgreSQL docs say concerning ORDER-less SELECTs: > "If the ORDER BY clause is specified, the returned rows are sorted in > the specified order. If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned > in whatever order the system finds fastest to produce. (See ORDER BY > Clause below.)" > > > So, shouldn't ORDER BY .. ASC be specified explicitly, instead of > relying on an implementation detail that might later change? > This strikes me as a good suggestion. I'll put a pull request together for it unless anyone has any objections. Jeremy Walker http://www.ihid.co.uk > > Thanks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
