Subject | Re: [ib-support] FIRST must be before DISTINCT |
---|---|
Author | Nando Dessena |
Post date | 2001-09-14T01:54:39Z |
Martijn,
ordered result set.
I still won't be sorting, but the rows will be in order.
At least that's what I recall.
Ciao
--
____
_/\/ando
> > SELECT FIRST (5) DISTINCT ....if the DISTINCT's argument has an index, it is used and you get an
> > returns rows according to primary key
>
> I think the same applies here. Just did a test and got the records in no
> particular order - the plan says it's not ordering. Are you sure this is
> what happens at your place? With my test query, there's no sort order
> mentioned in the plan - and no indices either.
ordered result set.
I still won't be sorting, but the rows will be in order.
At least that's what I recall.
Ciao
--
____
_/\/ando