Posted by Ed Murphy on 12/19/06 03:58

Russ Rose wrote:

> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in message
> news:c8Hhh.777$yx6.596@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>> Tables are not ordered.
>
> Even clustered ones?
>
>> Therefor the fact that SQL 2000 allowed the above syntax is basically
>> "wrong".
>
> Yet it works...

Relying on behavior that just happens to work (but is not promised to
do so) is asking for trouble down the road. But you knew that.

Hypothetical example that I came up with a while back: the server
might assign multiple CPUs to a single query, each scanning a different
portion of the relevant index range and applying the WHERE conditions,
then shuffling the matching rows together to form the output.

[Back to original message]