There is no guarantee which two rows you get. It will just be the first two retrieved from the table scan. The TOP iterator in the execution plan will stop requesting rows once two have been returned. Likely for a scan of a heap this will be the first two rows in allocation order but … Read more
Ok here is my solution to make programming this easier for anyone that happens along to this thread. the trick is being able to update all the order indexes above or below an insert / deletion in one update. Using a numeric (integer) column in your table, supported by the SQL queries CREATE TABLE myitems … Read more
you can do it like this SELECT * FROM Table ORDER BY date(dateColumn) DESC Limit 1
One way to order by positive integers, when they are stored as varchar, is to order by the length first and then the value: order by len(registration_no), registration_no This is particularly useful when the column might contain non-numeric values. Note: in some databases, the function to get the length of a string might be called … Read more
@Scott Bailey suggested great idea. But it can be even simpler (you don’t have to create custom function) since PostgreSQL 9.5. Just use array_position function: ORDER BY array_position(array[‘Nails’,’Bolts’,’Washers’,’Screws’,’Staples’,’Nuts’], s.type)
Don’t throw away the return value. The OrderBy extension method is does not mutate the input. Try: newView = newView.OrderBy(x => x.viewed); There is no reason why that won’t work, assuming the viewed value is correct. Also, make sure that OrderBy is after any operations (e.g. Distinct) which will ruin ordering. Happy coding!
Don’t know if this qualifies as simple: order by case when currency = ‘USD’ then 1 when currency = ‘BHT’ then 2 when currency = ‘JPY’ then 3 when currency = ‘MYR’ then 4 else 5 end or a bit more compact but Oracle specific: order by decode(currency, ‘USD’, 1, ‘BHT’, 2, ‘JPY’, 3, ‘MYR’, … Read more
This is the error you get (emphasis mine): The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified. So, how can you avoid the error? By specifying TOP, would be one possibility, I guess. SELECT ( SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT … Read more
You should use “ORDER BY FIELD“. So, for instance: SELECT * FROM table WHERE id IN (118,17,113,23,72) ORDER BY FIELD(id,118,17,113,23,72)
Sure: var newList = list.OrderByDescending(x => x.Product.Name).ToList(); Doc: OrderByDescending(IEnumerable, Func). In response to your comment: var newList = list.OrderByDescending(x => x.Product.Name) .ThenBy(x => x.Product.Price) .ToList();