 | |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: order by question -
10-24-2008
, 08:44 AM
|
On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acordingto x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, as it is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - |
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/...10034624597 2
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acordingto x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, as it is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - |
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/...10034624597 2
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acordingto x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, as it is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - |
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/...10034624597 2
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 13:08, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acording to x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, asit is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Found the answer: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/..._QUESTION_ID:1.... |
particularly the one entitled Sorting.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Our Man Flint did it decades ago. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n27phone.html
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 13:08, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acording to x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, asit is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Found the answer: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/..._QUESTION_ID:1.... |
particularly the one entitled Sorting.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Our Man Flint did it decades ago. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n27phone.html
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 13:08, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acording to x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, asit is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Found the answer: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/..._QUESTION_ID:1.... |
particularly the one entitled Sorting.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Our Man Flint did it decades ago. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n27phone.html
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Okt, 13:08, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra... (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: I have not been able to get a resultset which is unsorted acording to x.z but need to know that this would not happen in a productive environment. By definition all SQL prodiuces a set. The set is always an *unordered* collection *by design*, because that is mathematical theory. Ergo: Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query. It would be very silly to 'rely' on a specific ordering, and raises suspicions your 'productive environment' is not so productive, asit is processing a set as a bunch of records. Which it shouldn't as that wouldn't scale. -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA If you dont have anything valuable to add then dont. Do you actually have an example of when the resultset is not ordered because I have not been able to produce it. If yes then please say so. That would be valuable information for me. I already know that "Oracle does NOT guarantee any resultset is according to any order, when there is no order by clause in the top level of the query". That is pretty much basic stuff and this information is not valuable to me. And yes the system is productive. The select is in a function which returns a sys_refcursor to a java application. The select is based on tables where several of them contains more than 10 million records and is working well thus far. I do not see why it would not be scalable. Slavko- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If you are not interested in hearing you shouldn't rely on default ordering, why post an insulting response? -- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBA- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Sybrand: You were not answering my question. I thought it was obviuos from my question that I understand that Oracle does not guarantee the correct sort order but that I have not been able to produce a wrong order. And then you were questioning if this really was for a productive environment or not and that it would not be scalable. I found that you did not try to be helpful but instead tried to belittle my question as being stupid. If that was not your intent then I apologize. If you can produce an example with wrong ordering I would be grateful. Jim: I have tried to search on askTom but not found anything. I have only found out that one cannot rely on Oracle to order by when records were inserted (which I already knew). If you have a link I would be very thankful.- Dölj citerad text - - Visa citerad text - Found the answer: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/..._QUESTION_ID:1.... |
particularly the one entitled Sorting.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Our Man Flint did it decades ago. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n27phone.html
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.