Posted by Beowulf on 01/26/06 16:38

David Portas wrote:
> Beowulf wrote:
>
>> So, it's just a coincidence (or perhaps luck) that in other views (see
>> below) the ORDER BY is respected and the rows returned by the view are
>> sorted in the specified order?
>
> You could call it luck, yes. SQL Server 2000 usually seems to respect
> the order defined in the view, even though there is no formal guarantee
> that it always will. SQL Server 2005 added some engine improvements
> that seem to make it less likely that the view order will be preserved
> - no problem as long as you observe the documented convention that a
> SELECT without ORDER BY is unordered.

Thanks for the information. It's good to know what the formal standards
are.

• Next in forum: Query out an xml element from a field containing xml data
• Prev in forum: Re: Can i debug/watch on the trigger's INSERTED and DELETED records/values?
• Thread view: Re: ORDER BY in VIEW not working

[Reply to this message]