![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:06:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Peter H. Coffin wrote: Which might be in oder written, which might be tempered by reuse of rows, which might be altered by whatever results are lying around in a cache. In short, there is no "natural order". well obviously there IS, but it is not something that is reliably the same .. Okay then, "whatever order it comes out". The problem with sticking a "natural order" on that concept is that it leads people to think that this order is derivable, predictable, or even repeatable. And that's unreliable to the point of "IT'S A TRAP! RUN!" levels of unreliable. It's not an order at all like ORDER BY is an order. |

#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24-02-11 21:32, Peter H. Coffin wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:06:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Peter H. Coffin wrote: Which might be in oder written, which might be tempered by reuse of rows, which might be altered by whatever results are lying around in a cache. In short, there is no "natural order". well obviously there IS, but it is not something that is reliably the same .. Okay then, "whatever order it comes out". The problem with sticking a "natural order" on that concept is that it leads people to think that this order is derivable, predictable, or even repeatable. And that's unreliable to the point of "IT'S A TRAP! RUN!" levels of unreliable. It's not an order at all like ORDER BY is an order. it is, and remains, the unpredictable order..... ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |