Re: order by question

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