Posted by --CELKO-- on 03/07/06 03:45

>> We've hit this Order By problem as well. I don't mind exactly that it changed from SQL Server 2000. I am a bit torqued that at MSDN the article Behavior Changes to Database Engine Features in SQL Server 2005doesn't say anything remotely like, "This used to work but this way, but not anymore." I'm also a bit miffed that in the conversion process nothing says to you (according to our DBA) "Oh, those Order By clauses? Forget about them." <<

This is how God, Microsoft and your own ignornace punish you baaaaad
programmers who ignored ANSI/ISO Standards and wrote crappy proprietary
code to a particular release of a particular product.

>> you simply cannot return an ordered set from a view, how exactly are you supposed to cope with that in an application? <<

By writing good code in the first place. DUH!!! Have you read any of
Tony Rogerson's postings praising proprietary code to get speed? Have
you read any of my postings about avoiding proprietary code to get
portability? Gee, sure sounds like I was right, doesn't it?

A VIEW with an ordering is absurd; a VIEW is a table and **by
definition** has no ordering. DUH! And it always has been that way
since 1986. This is no surprise to REAL SQL programmers.

If you want to REALLY fix your problems, contact me off line. Or stay
on Newsgroup and collect more Kludges until your company disappears. I
am not available in May; I will be teaching SQL in Brazil for two weeks
in the hope of helping a chemical company not get to wher you are.

[Back to original message]