Ooops! Appologies to all for being sooo stupid!
I thought the order by was applied before the WHERE and if ordering in DESC
order for example would mean greater than and so on in the where clause
because I assumed meant it would appear before in the returned order.
Of course the where just
SQL92 says:
direct select statement: multiple rows ::=
query expression [ order by clause ]
[...]
3) Let T be the table specified by the query expression.
4) If ORDER BY is specified, then each sort specification in the
order by clause shall identify a column of
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:50:22 -0500, Dmitry Tkach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then it looks like postgres behaviour is still not compliant, if I read it correctly,
because
select x from mytable order by y;
should be invalid according to this, but works just fine in postres.
Yes, this is a Postgres
Dmitry Tkach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then it looks like postgres behaviour is still not compliant, if I read it
correctly, because
select x from mytable order by y;
should be invalid according to this, but works just fine in postres.
Yup, it's an extension --- as indeed is pointed out at
Because the WHERE clause is directly affected by the ORDER BY clause. If you
leave out the order by clause then the row count will be completely different
and therefore wrong. The ORDER BY clause is just as important as the WHERE
clause when counting rows. It should be possible to get a count
