> > Sorry for answering before properly reading the question...
> >
> > No, a DESCending index cannot be used with an ASCending ORDER BY.
> You
> > need two separate indexes if you want to index the field both
> > ASCending and DESCending.
>
> > Though note that too many indexes can be as
> > bad as too few indexes, create only those that are likely to be
> > selective and useful.
> >
> > Set
> >
>
> Indeed. This is the real problem. I display the data (let's say 50,
> 000) rows in a grid with let's say 10 columns. Now the grid can be
> sorted by every column in ASC or DESC order. Imagine how this will
> look for 15 columns where I would have 30 indexes that slow down my
> INSERTS, UPDATES and are very large because I have 50,000 rows.
>
> I don't get the reason for this unidirectional approach but to me is a
> pain in the proverbial arse.

Can't be as bad as showing 50000 rows in a grid :-)

> Maybe there is another way of doing this, but the nature of the data
> and of the software application forces me to do this.

Sorting is independent of indices. If you want to retrieve all the rows,
fetching them via an index is slower than fetching them straight from
disk and sorting them afterwards.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com