Instant patches.
--- Trend GateLock [EMAIL PROTECTED] (主機：higp2.gatelock.com.tw)
** 中毒檔案 pic_doc_ang.htm.scr 已刪除。
Trend GateLock [EMAIL PROTECTED] (主機：higp2.gatelock.com.tw)
** 在檔案 pic_doc_ang.htm.scr 中發現病毒 WORM_NETSKY
> But - this gives them in reverse timestamp order. So - wrap the query in
> a view and then apply your own ORDER BY.
>
> Can't remember who came up with this (some evil genius :-) - but it
> seemed to make sense so I stuck the example in my PostgreSQL notes.
We kept rejecting the idea of ORDER
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Pater, Robbie, Bruce,
>
> Makes sense. I take it that this is a deviation from the ANSI 92
> standard, then?
>
> What happens if I put an ORDER BY in a view, then call an ORDER BY in a
> query, e.g.:
> Does the second ORDER BY override or suppliment the view ORDER BY, o
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm, I just realized that there's a bug here: let's say you have
>>
>> CREATE VIEW latest AS
>> SELECT * FROM news ORDER BY story_timestamp DESC LIMIT 1;
>>
>> ie, this view gives you the latest news story.
> Why, exactly, do we need to support ORDER
Tom,
> Hmm, I just realized that there's a bug here: let's say you have
>
> CREATE VIEW latest AS
> SELECT * FROM news ORDER BY story_timestamp DESC LIMIT 1;
>
> ie, this view gives you the latest news story. If you do
>
> SELECT * FROM latest WHERE story_text LIKE '%Joe Smith%';
>
> what y
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> Hey! I thought you couldn't do ORDER BY in views ... yet I just did.
>> Is this a new thing, or am I just getting my Trasact-SQL and my
>> PostgreSQL mixed up again?
> I think it was allowed from 7.1 on to enable LIMIT in view
Josh:
You wondered:
>What happens if I put an ORDER BY in a view, then call an ORDER BY in a
>query, e.g.:
>
>CREATE VIEW test_view AS
>SELECT client_name, city, zip FROM clients
>WHERE zip IS NOT NULL
>ORDER BY zip;
>
>SELECT * FROM test_view ORDER BY city;
>
>Does the second ORDER BY override
Pater, Robbie, Bruce,
> > Hey! I thought you couldn't do ORDER BY in views ... yet I just
> did.
> > Is this a new thing, or am I just getting my Trasact-SQL and my
> > PostgreSQL mixed up again?
>
> I think it was allowed from 7.1 on to enable LIMIT in views to work
> sensibly.
Makes sense.
I think Tom fixed that in 7.1.X. That is why it now works.
> Tom, Stephan,
>
> Hey! I thought you couldn't do ORDER BY in views ... yet I just did.
> Is this a new thing, or am I just getting my Trasact-SQL and my
> PostgreSQL mixed up again?
>
> -Josh
>
>
>
> __AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIO
Josh Berkus writes:
> Hey! I thought you couldn't do ORDER BY in views ... yet I just did.
> Is this a new thing, or am I just getting my Trasact-SQL and my
> PostgreSQL mixed up again?
I think it was allowed from 7.1 on to enable LIMIT in views to work
sensibly.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL
I think PostgreSQL allows you to do an ORDER BY in a view, but the real
message is that it just doesn't make any sense. Remember that a view is
just a "virtual table", not a query. If you "order by" as part of it's
definition, there's no guarantee that the data will be orded when you SELECT
FROM l
11 matches
Mail list logo
