On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:40:33PM -0300, Emanuel Calvo Franco wrote: > 2009/5/8 David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:10:18PM -0300, Emanuel Calvo Franco wrote: > >> Hi all. > >> > >> I'll make this faster. > >> > >> I hace this table and this function: > > > > You should only ever assume that your SELECT's output will have a > > particular ordering when you include an ORDER BY clause that > > actually specifies the order well enough :) > > > > I test it in the first time :) > > With the 'order by' it works well, but in 'theory' The theory under which you should operate is that the underlying implementation only gives you the orderings you ask for. This way, when other beneficial implementation changes happen, they will not surprise you. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
