Kirk Wolak <wolakk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have some converted code that uses this syntax. Seems kinda dumb, but ... > The solution is to remove the ORDER BY NULL. [since that is not > sortable, should it be ignored?] > This does NOT SHOW UP with 1 million rows. I don't see it at all. Comparing your two test queries on released branches, I see maybe 2x penalty for the ORDER BY NULL, not 30x. (In HEAD there's only about 13% penalty.) I wonder what PG version you are testing. regards, tom lane
