Unordered SELECT - random vs undefined

Started by Thom Brownover 15 years ago4 messagesdocs
Jump to latest
#1Thom Brown
thom@linux.com

Keith Gabryelski submitted this comment for the docs, which I rejected
as a comment, but think still needs correcting in the docs:

the line:
When a table is read, the rows will appear in random order, unless
sorting is explicitly requested

should be:
When a table is read, the rows will appear in an undefined order,
unless sorting is explicitly requested.

This applies to: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-basics.html

--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Thom Brown (#1)
Re: Unordered SELECT - random vs undefined

Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:

should be:
When a table is read, the rows will appear in an undefined order,
unless sorting is explicitly requested.

Perhaps "unspecified" is le mot juste.

regards, tom lane

#3Thom Brown
thom@linux.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: Unordered SELECT - random vs undefined

On 20 August 2010 14:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:

should be:
When a table is read, the rows will appear in an undefined order,
unless sorting is explicitly requested.

Perhaps "unspecified" is le mot juste.

Yes, that sounds more appopriate.

--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Thom Brown (#3)
Re: Unordered SELECT - random vs undefined

Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:

On 20 August 2010 14:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Perhaps "unspecified" is le mot juste.

Yes, that sounds more appopriate.

OK, done. I found one other place in the docs where "random" seemed
to be used inappropriately, too.

regards, tom lane