[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Greg Patnude") writes:
> There's a difference between "natural" order (the location in the
> database or on disk) and "record" order (the order specified by the
> primary key)...
That's well and fine; I could see the "natural order" in which data is
returned varying over time i
y, March 30, 2005 3:04 PM
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] New record position
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why it? I can't undestand why the new record location was change.
Shouldn't it
> apper at the LAST record???
> What need I do??
SQL only imposes an order on th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why it? I can't undestand why the new record location was change. Shouldn't it
> apper at the LAST record???
> What need I do??
SQL only imposes an order on the return set if you add an "ORDER BY"
clause.
You can't expect any particular order to either recur or NOT rec
Okay, I will use the "order by" clause.
I was worried about it. I have thought that my database had crashed.
Thank you.
Quoting Oleg Bartunov :
This is a feature of relational databases, you should explicitly specify
ordering if you want persistent order.
btw, why do you bothering ?
Oleg
Why it? I can't undestand why the new record location was change.
Shouldn't it
apper at the LAST record???
What need I do??
Thank you.
The SQL spec specifies that if you don't use ORDER BY, well, the records
come out in any order they want. Actually it's the order they are on disk,
which i
This is a feature of relational databases, you should explicitly specify
ordering if you want persistent order.
btw, why do you bothering ?
Oleg
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using Slackware Linux 10, Postgresql 8.0.1.
My computer had a incorrectly power down (l
