Hi, I’m using Rails 3.2.1 and following through Mike Hartl’s
tutorial.
irb(main):024:0> User.first
User Load (0.6ms) SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” LIMIT 1
=> …
irb(main):025:0> User.last
User Load (1.0ms) SELECT “users”.* FROM “users” ORDER BY
“users”.“id” DESC LIMIT 1
=> …
Here’s what PostgreSQL docs say concerning ORDER-less SELECTs:
“If the ORDER BY clause is specified, the returned rows are sorted in
the specified order. If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned
in whatever order the system finds fastest to produce. (See ORDER BY
Clause below.)”
So, shouldn’t ORDER BY … ASC be specified explicitly, instead of
relying on an implementation detail that might later change?
Thanks.
On 7 May 2012 08:31, [email protected]
[email protected]wrote:
Here’s what PostgreSQL docs say concerning ORDER-less SELECTs:
“If the ORDER BY clause is specified, the returned rows are sorted in
the specified order. If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned
in whatever order the system finds fastest to produce. (See ORDER BY
Clause below.)”
So, shouldn’t ORDER BY … ASC be specified explicitly, instead of
relying on an implementation detail that might later change?
This strikes me as a good suggestion. I’ll put a pull request together
for
it unless anyone has any objections.
Jeremy W.
http://www.ihid.co.uk
Could you please send the link of this commit?
On 7 May 2012 17:34, Jeremy W. [email protected] wrote:
irb(main):025:0> User.last
So, shouldn’t ORDER BY … ASC be specified explicitly, instead of
relying on an implementation detail that might later change?
This strikes me as a good suggestion. I’ll put a pull request together for
it unless anyone has any objections.
After a quick browse through the code, this has already been added to
Rails
master and will appear in a future release.