hello,

on FB1.5 NULLs were always placed at the end of a sorted set, no matter whether the order was ascending or descending.

In Firebird 2, NULLs are considered "smaller" than anything else when it comes to sorting. Consequently, they come first in ascending sorts and last in descending sorts

1. why this behavior ? it's more logical to put null at the end of a sorted set like it was in FB1.5 ...

yes we have the option to override the default NULLs placement, but in this way no index will be used for sorting :(

any idea or sugestion ?