"Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, where ORDER BY in a VIEW is really helpful, is with OFFSET
> and/or LIMIT clauses (which are also PostgreSQL extensions), which is
> equivalent to what you point out.
Right, which is the main reason why we allow it. I thi
On 2008-02-28 09:13, Tom Lane wrote:
A rule of thumb is that ORDER BY in a view is bad design, IMHO.
regards, tom lane
I was surprised to find out that apparently it's also a PostgreSQL
extension; standard SQL apparently disallows ORDER BY in VIEWs:
http://en.wik
2008/2/27, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Are you sure the table had been analyzed recently at all on that server?
>
> If it had, then what you must be dealing with is a different result from
> a different random sample. The laws of statistics say that sometimes a
> random sample won't be ve
"Robins Tharakan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I give an ORDER BY clause in a VIEW and then use it in another query
> where the VIEW's ORDER BY is immaterial, would the planner be able to
> discard this ORDER BY clause ?
No. That's a feature not a bug; the sorts of cases where you want an
ORD
Hi,
While designing a complex database structure I wanted to ask a basic
question about views.
If I give an ORDER BY clause in a VIEW and then use it in another query
where the VIEW's ORDER BY is immaterial, would the planner be able to
discard this ORDER BY clause ?
Any pointers / feedbacks wou
