Fair enough. Now I understand your comments, and agree with them.
Regards
HJR
--
Oracle Resources : http://www.geocities.com/howardjr2000
========================================
"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_home.com> wrote in message
news:HVID7.2275$Fm5.1355820_at_news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> You are correct. (at least on an initial data load(I believe) - Don't
have
> Jonathan's book in front of me - I left it at work, I'll look at it
> tomorrow; yes, it is good reading)
>
> What I should have said is that don't insert them in a particular order
with
> the expectation that by default you will get them back in that order
without
> specifying a particular order. Often get people expecting a particular
> order and they don't specify one. Seen whole threads where people
> "complain" because database X retrieves rows in the "correct" order
without
> an order by clause and database Y does not and management won't let the
poor
> sod use an order by clause in database Y so how to fix. (enlighten
> management)
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote in message
> news:3bdf5321$0$25892$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> > There are perfectly justifiable grounds for loading data with an order
by
> > clause. It's possible that queries have to read fewer blocks to
retrieve
> > the requisite data as a result of re-packing the data into a
> > query-appropriate order.
> >
> > You might, for example, care to re-read pages 67 and 68 of Jonathan
Lewis'
> > "Practical Oracle 8i", which illustrates the point.
> >
> > Not perhaps that that is relevant to the original poster, but saying it
> just
> > causes extra work for no benefit is oversimplifying things a bit.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> > --
> >
> > Oracle Resources : http://www.geocities.com/howardjr2000
> > ========================================
> >
> >
> > "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_home.com> wrote in message
> > news:H5ID7.2035$Fm5.1250544_at_news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> > > no. If it works it is just causing the machine to do more work for no
> > > benefit.
> > > Jim
> > > "Bliss" <bliss_is_ignorance_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3bdee76c$1_1_at_news.tm.net.my...
> > > > A friend just brought to my notice that
> > > >
> > > > CREATE TABLE .... AS SELECT .... ORDER BY does work... will that
help
> in
> > > any
> > > > way????
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bliss
> > > >
> > > > "Bliss" <bliss_is_ignorance_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3bd83ba3_1_at_news.tm.net.my...
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Though your script works in 9i, it seems a little illogical to
> me....
> > > How
> > > > > can you INSERT using ORDER BY? What will you achieve by doing
> this???
> > > > > Remember that Oracle does not display data in order it is inserted
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > give a SELECT statement. If you can specify what you are trying
to
> > > > achieve,
> > > > > may be there'll be a solution...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Bliss
> > > > >
> > > > > "tIM" <tjm_at_geac.dk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b1f8412c.0110250426.69c05a26_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > > > Hi I am faced with a problem ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I run the following code on Oracle 8i the create procedure
> fails.
> > I
> > > > > > can't figure out why because the command alone works!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that this works on 9i (is this a confirmed bug with a patch
> or
> > > > > > anything!!!?!?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TIA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CREATE TABLE TEST1(
> > > > > > test1 number(1));
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CREATE TABLE TEST2(
> > > > > > test1 number(1));
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > insert into test1 (test1) select test1
> > > > > > FROM
> > > > > > test2
> > > > > > WHERE
> > > > > > test1='ss'
> > > > > > ORDER BY test1;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CREATE PROCEDURE TEST
> > > > > > IS
> > > > > > BEGIN
> > > > > > insert into test1 (test1) select test1
> > > > > > FROM
> > > > > > test2
> > > > > > WHERE
> > > > > > test1='ss'
> > > > > > ORDER BY test1;
> > > > > > END;
> > > > > > /
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 30 2001 - 20:09:07 CST
