Re: order by question
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 24, 6:44 am, sbr..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> On 24 Okt, 13:08, sbr..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 24 Okt, 12:46, sybrandb <sybra..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 24 okt, 10:56, sbr..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On 23 Okt, 17:34, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT), sbr..._at_yahoo.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, 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 -
> Found the answer:
Also see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%27order+by%27+site%3Ajonathanlewis.wordpress.com&aq=f&oq= particularly the one entitled Sorting.
-- @home.com is bogus. Our Man Flint did it decades ago. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081027/news_1n27phone.htmlReceived on Mon Oct 27 2008 - 15:28:50 CDT