Posted by Serge Rielau on 03/07/06 23:16

Rick,

I don't get your logic forcing the extra view.

Example:
CREATE TABLE T(c1);
CREATE VIEW V AS SELECT * FROM T ORDER BY c1 ASC;

-- I don't care:
SELECT * FROM V => no order

-- I want "the" order:
SELECT * FROM V ORDER BY ORDER OF V => C1 ASCENDING
Note that the clause is rather brain dead. Your .NET/JDBC/PHP client
could tack it on under the covers if you always want it.

-- I want order and I'm going to decide what it is:
SELECT * FROM V ORDER BY c1 DESC => c1 DESCENDING

The problem with your statement level switch is that it is - eh -
statement level.
That is what if you have a nested view somewhere embedded.
You probably don't want the DBMS to sort unless the order finds it's way
to the top.

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

• Next in forum: Re: How does one set read-uncommitted on the entire DB?
• Prev in forum: Re: Can a stored procedure parameter be optional
• Thread view: Re: ORDER BY in VIEW not working

[Reply to this message]