Kind of a whimsical question, always something I've wondered about and I figure knowing why it does what it does might deepen my understanding a bit.
Let's say I do "SELECT TOP 10 * FROM TableName". In short timeframes, the same 10 rows come back, so it doesn't seem random. They weren't the first or last created. In my massive sample size of...one table, it isn't returning the min or max auto-incrementing primary key value.
I also figure the problem gets more complex when taking joins into account.
My database of choice is MSSQL, but I figure this might be an interesting question regardless of the platform.
If you do not supply an ORDER BY clause on a SELECT statement you will get rows back in arbitrary order.
The actual order is undefined, and depends on which blocks/records are already cached in memory, what order I/O is performed in, when threads in the database server are scheduled to run, and so on.
There's no rhyme or reason to the order and you should never base any expectations on what order rows will be in unless you supply an ORDER BY.
If they're not ordered by the calling query, I believe they're just returned in the order they were read off disk. This may vary because of the types of joins used or the indexes that looked up the values.
You can see this if the table has a clustered index on it (and you're just selecting - a JOIN can re-order things) - a SELECT will return the rows in clustered-index-order, even without an ORDER BY clause.
There is a very detailed explanation with examples here: http://sqlserverpedia.com/blog/sql-server-bloggers/its-the-natural-order-of-things-not/
"How do database servers decide which order to return rows without any “order by” statements?"
They simply do not take any "decision" with respect to ordering. They see the user doesn't care about ordering, and so they don't care either. And thus they simply go out to find the requested rows. The order in which they find them is normally the order in which you get them. That order depends on user-unpredictable things like the chosen physical access paths, ordering of physical records inside the database's physical files, etc. etc.
Don't let yourself be misled by the ordering as you get it, in the case where you didn't explicitly specify an ordering in your query. If you don't specify an ordering in your query, no ordering in the result set is guaranteed, even if in practice results seem to suggest that some ordering appears to be adhered to by the server.
Related
As I know, from the relational database theory, a select statement without an order by clause should be considered to have no particular order. But actually in SQL Server and Oracle (I've tested on those 2 platforms), if I query from a table without an order by clause multiple times, I always get the results in the same order. Does this behavior can be relied on? Anyone can help to explain a little?
No, that behavior cannot be relied on. The order is determined by the way the query planner has decided to build up the result set. simple queries like select * from foo_table are likely to be returned in the order they are stored on disk, which may be in primary key order or the order they were created, or some other random order. more complex queries, such as select * from foo where bar < 10 may instead be returned in order of a different column, based on an index read, or by the table order, for a table scan. even more elaborate queries, with multipe where conditions, group by clauses, unions, will be in whatever order the planner decides is most efficient to generate.
The order could even change between two identical queries just because of data that has changed between those queries. a "where" clause may be satisfied with an index scan in one query, but later inserts could make that condition less selective, and the planner could decide to perform a subsequent query using a table scan.
To put a finer point on it. RDBMS systems have the mandate to give you exactly what you asked for, as efficiently as possible. That efficiency can take many forms, including minimizing IO (both to disk as well as over the network to send data to you), minimizing CPU and keeping the size of its working set small (using methods that require minimal temporary storage).
without an ORDER BY clause, you will have not asked exactly for a particular order, and so the RDBMS will give you those rows in some order that (maybe) corresponds with some coincidental aspect of the query, based on whichever algorithm the RDBMS expects to produce the data the fastest.
If you care about efficiency, but not order, skip the ORDER BY clause. If you care about the order but not efficiency, use the ORDER BY clause.
Since you actually care about BOTH use ORDER BY and then carefully tune your query and database so that it is efficient.
No, you can't rely on getting the results back in the same order every time. I discovered that when working on a web page with a paged grid. When I went to the next page, and then back to the previous page, the previous page contained different records! I was totally mystified.
For predictable results, then, you should include an ORDER BY. Even then, if there are identical values in the specified columns there, you can get different results. You may have to ORDER BY fields that you didn't really think you needed, just to get a predictable result.
Tom Kyte has a pet peeve about this topic. For whatever reason, people are fascinated by this, and keep trying to come up with cases where you can rely upon a specific order without specifying ORDER BY. As others have stated, you can't. Here's another amusing thread on the topic on the AskTom website.
The Right Answer
This is a new answer added to correct the old one. I've got answer from Tom Kyte and I post it here:
If you want rows sorted YOU HAVE TO USE AN ORDER. No if, and, or buts about it. period. http://tkyte.blogspot.ru/2005/08/order-in-court.html You need order by on that IOT. Rows are sorted in leaf blocks, but leaf blocks are not stored sorted. fast full scan=unsorted rows.
https://twitter.com/oracleasktom/status/625318150590980097
https://twitter.com/oracleasktom/status/625316875338149888
The Wrong Answer
(Attention! The original answer on the question was placed below here only for the sake of the history. It's wrong answer. The right answer is placed above)
As Tom Kyte wrote in the article mentioned before:
You should think of a heap organized table as a big unordered
collection of rows. These rows will come out in a seemingly random
order, and depending on other options being used (parallel query,
different optimizer modes and so on), they may come out in a different
order with the same query. Do not ever count on the order of rows from
a query unless you have an ORDER BY statement on your query!
But note he only talks about heap-organized tables. But there is also index-orgainzed tables. In that case you can rely on order of the select without ORDER BY because order implicitly defined by primary key. It is true for Oracle.
For SQL Server clustered indexes (index-organized tables) created by default. There is also possibility for PostgreSQL store information aligning by index. More information can be found here
UPDATE:
I see, that there is voting down on my answer. So I would try to explain my point a little bit.
In the section Overview of Index-Organized Tables there is a phrase:
In an index-organized table, rows are stored in an index defined on the primary key for the table... Index-organized tables are useful when related pieces of data must be stored together or data must be physically stored in a specific order.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E25054_01/server.1111/e25789/indexiot.htm#CBBJEBIH
Because of index, all data is stored in specific order, I believe same is true for Pg.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/sql-cluster.html
If you don't agree with me please give me a link on the documenation. I'll be happy to know that there is something to learn for me.
Suppose, if following rows are inserted in chronological order into a table:
row1, row2, row3, row4, ..., row1000, row1001.
After a while, we delete/remove the latest row1001.
As in this post: How to get Top 5 records in SqLite?
If the below command is run:
SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1;
Will it assuredly provide the "row1000"?
If no, then is there any efficient way to get the latest row(s)
without traversing through all the rows? -- i.e. without using
combination of ORDER BY and DESC.
[Note: For now I am using "SQLite", but it will be interesting for me to know about SQL in general as well.]
You're misunderstanding how SQL works. You're thinking row-by-row which is wrong. SQL does not "traverse rows" as per your concern; it operates on data as "sets".
Others have pointed out that relational database cannot be assumed to have any particular ordering, so you must use ORDER BY to explicitly specify ordering.
However (not mentioned yet is that), in order to ensure it performs efficiently, you need to create an appropriate index.
Whether you have an index or not, the correct query is:
SELECT <cols>
FROM <table>
ORDER BY <sort-cols> [DESC] LIMIT <no-rows>
Note that if you don't have an index the database will load all data and probably sort in memory to find the TOP n.
If you do have the appropriate index, the database will use the best index available to retrieve the TOP n rows as efficiently as possible.
Note that the sqllite documentation is very clear on the matter. The section on ORDER BY explains that ordering is undefined. And nothing in the section on LIMIT contradicts this (it simply constrains the number of rows returned).
If a SELECT statement that returns more than one row does not have an ORDER BY clause, the order in which the rows are returned is undefined.
This behaviour is also consistent with the ANSI standard and all major SQL implementations. Note that any database vendor that guaranteed any kind of ordering would have to sacrifice performance to the detriment of queries trying to retrieve data but not caring about order. (Not good for business.)
As a side note, flawed assumptions about ordering is an easy mistake to make (similar to flawed assumptions about uninitialised local variables).
RDBMS implementations are very likely to make ordering appear consistent. They follow a certain algorithm for adding data, a certain algorithm for retrieving data. And as a result, their operations are highly repeatable (it's what we love (and hate) about computers). So things repeatably look the same.
Theoretical examples:
Inserting a row results in the row being added to the next available free space. So data appears sequential. But an update would have to move the row to a new location if it no longer fits.
The DB engine might retrieve data sequentially from clustered index pages and seem to use clustered index as the 'natural ordering' ... until one day a page-split puts one of the pages in a different location. * Or a new version of the DMBS might cache certain data for performance, and suddenly order changes.
Real-world example:
The MS SQL Server 6.5 implementation of GROUP BY had the side-effect of also sorting by the group-by columns. When MS (in version 7 or 2000) implemented some performance improvements, GROUP BY would by default, return data in a hashed order. Many people blamed MS for breaking their queries when in fact they had made false assumptions and failed to ORDER BY their results as needed.
This is why the only guarantee of a specific ordering is to use the ORDER BY clause.
No. Table records have no inherent order. So it is undefined which row(s) to get with a LIMIT clause without an ORDER BY.
SQLite in its current implemantation may return the latest inserted row, but even if that were the case you must not rely on it.
Give a table a datetime column or some sortkey, if record order is important for you.
In SQL, data is stored in tables unordered. What comes out first one day might not be the same the next.
ORDER BY, or some other specific selection criteria is required to guarantee the correct value.
I need to run a query that groups the result and orders it. When I used the following query I noticed that the results were ordered by the field name:
SELECT name, count(name)
FROM contacts
GROUP BY name
HAVING count(name)>1
Originally I planed on using the following query:
SELECT name, count(name)
FROM contacts
GROUP BY name
HAVING count(name)>1
ORDER BY name
I'm worried that order by significantly slows the running time.
Can I depend on ms-access to always order by the field I am grouping by, and eliminate the order by?
EDIT: I tried grouping different fields in other tables and it was always ordered by the grouped field.
I have found answers to this question to other SQL DBMSs, but not access.
How GROUP BY and ORDER BY work in general
Databases usually choose between sorting and hashing when creating groups for GROUP BY or DISTINCT operations. If they do choose sorting, you might get lucky and the sorting is stable between the application of GROUP BY and the actual result set consumption. But at some later point, this may break as the database might suddenly prefer an order-less hashing algorithm to produce groups.
In no database, you should ever rely on any implicit ordering behaviour. You should always use explicit ORDER BY. If the database is sophisticated enough, adding an explicit ORDER BY clause will hint that sorting is more optimal for the grouping operation as well, as the sorting can then be re-used in the query execution pipeline.
How this translates to your observation
I tried grouping different fields in other tables and it was always ordered by the grouped field.
Have you exhaustively tried all possible queries that could ever be expressed? I.e. have you tried:
JOIN
OUTER JOIN
semi-JOIN (using EXISTS or IN)
anti-JOIN (using NOT EXISTS or NOT IN)
filtering
grouping by many many columns
DISTINCT + GROUP BY (this will certainly break your ordering)
UNION or UNION ALL (which defeats this argument anyway)
I bet you haven't. And even if you tried all of the above, can you be sure there isn't a very peculiar configuration where the above breaks, just because you've observed the behaviour in some (many) experiments?
You cannot.
MS Access specific behaviour
As far as MS Access is concerned, consider the documentation on ORDER BY
Remarks
ORDER BY is optional. However, if you want your data displayed in sorted order, then you must use ORDER BY.
Notice the wording. "You must use ORDER BY". So, MS Acces is no different from other databases.
The answer
So your question about performance is going in the wrong direction. You cannot sacrifice correctness for performance in this case. Better tackle performance by using indexes.
Here is the MSDN documentation for the GROUP BY clause in Access SQL:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb177905(v=office.12).aspx
The page makes no reference to any implied or automatic ordering of results - if you do see desired ordering without an explicit ORDER BY then it is entirely coincidental.
The only way to guarantee the particular ordering of results in SQL is with ORDER BY.
There is a slight performance problem with using ORDER BY (in general) in that it requires the DBMS to get all of the results first before it outputs the first row of results (though the DBMS is free to use an "online sort" algorithm that sorts data as it gets each row from its backing store, it still needs to get the last row from the backing store before it can return the first row to the client (in case the last row from the backing-store happens to be the 1st result according to the ORDER BY) - however unless you're querying tens of thousands of rows in a latency-sensitive application this is not a problem - and as you're using Access already it's very clear that this is not a performance-sensitive application.
Is the result of GROUP BY should be sorted accordingly the SQL standard?
Many databases return the sorted results for GROUP BY,
but is it enforced by SQL92 or other standard?
No. GROUP BY has no standard impact on the order of rows returned. That's what ORDER BY is designed to do.
If you're getting some kind of repeatable or predictable sort order returned by a GROUP BY, it's something being done in your DBMS that is not defined in the standards.
As a previous answer has explained, no sorting is ever implied by any basic SQL construct other than ORDER BY.
However, to compute GROUP BY, either index scan or in-memory sorting may take place (to create the buckets), and such an index scan, or sorting, implies a traversal of the data in a sorted order. So it is no accident that a particular database often behaves like this. Do not rely on it, however, because with a different set of indexes, or even just a different query plan (which may be triggered as little as by a few inserts and/or a restart of your database server) the behavior could be quite different.
Notice also that reordering the column list in the ORDER BY clause will result in reliably reordering the output, whereas reordering the column list in a GROUP BY clause will likely have no effect whatsoever.
There is no performance cost of using a seemingly "redundant" ORDER BY. The query plan will likely be identical, if the original one already guaranteed sorted output.
Um, sorting the output of a GROUP BY is not in the standard because there are standard algorithms for grouping that do not produce results in order.
The most common of these is the use of a hash table for doing the group by.
In addition, on a multithreaded server, the data could be sorted, but the results would be returned processor-by-processor. There is no guarantee that the lowest order processor would be the first to return data.
And also, on a parallel machine, the data may be split among the processors using a variety of methods. For instance, all strings that end in "a" may go to one processor. All that end in "b" to another. These could then be sorted locally, but the results themselves would not be sorted overall.
Databases such as mysql that guarantee a sort after the group by are making a poor design decision. In addition to not conforming to the standard, such databases either limit the choice of algorithm or impose additional processing for ordering.
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but when querying a data table from Oracle, where multiple records exist for a key (say a customer ID), the record that appears first for that customer can vary if there is no implicit "order by" statement enforcing the order by say an alternate field such as a transaction type. So running the same query on the same table could yield a different record ordering than from 10 minutes ago.
E.g., one run could yield:
Cust_ID, Transaction_Type
123 A
123 B
Unless an "order by Transaction_Type" clause is used, Oracle could arbitrarily return the following result the next time the query is run:
Cust_ID, Transaction_Type
123 B
123 A
I guess I was under the impression that there was a database default ordering of rows in Oracle which (perhaps) reflected the physical ordering on the disk medium. In other words, an arbitrary order that is immutable and would guarantee the same result when a query is rerun.
Does this have to do with the optimizer and how it decides where to most efficiently retrieve the data?
Of course the best practice from a programming perspective is to force whatever ordering is required, I was just a little unsettled by this behavior.
The order of rows returned to the application from a SELECT statement is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY unless otherwise specified. If you want, need, or expect rows to return in a certain order, it is the user's responsibility to specify such an order.
(Caveat: Some versions of Oracle would implicitly sort data in ascending order if certain operations were used, such as DISTINCT, UNION, MINUS, INTERSECT, or GROUP BY. However, as Oracle has implemented hash sorting, the nature of the sort of the data can vary, and lots of SQL relying on that feature broke.)
There is no default ordering, ever. If you don't specify ORDER BY, you can get the same result the first 10000 times, then it can change.
Note that this is also true even with ORDER BY for equal values. For example:
Col1 Col2
1 1
2 1
3 2
4 2
If you use ORDER BY Col2, you still don't know if row 1 or 2 will come first.
Just image the rows in a table like balls in a basket. Do the balls have an order?
I dont't think there is any DBMS that guarantees an order if ORDER BY is not specified.
Some might always return the rows in the order they were inserted, but that is an implementation side effect.
Some execution plans might cause the result set to be ordered even without an ORDER BY, but again this is an implementation side-effect that you should not rely on.
If an ORDER BY clause is not present the database (not just Oracle - any relational database) is free to return rows in whatever order it happens to find them. This will vary depending on the query plan chosen by the optimizer.
If the order in which the rows are returned matters you must use an ORDER BY clause. You may sometimes get lucky and the rows will come back in the order you want them to be even without an ORDER BY, but there is no guarantee that A) you will get lucky on other queries, and B) the order in which the rows are returned tomorrow will be the same as the order in which they're returned today.
In addition, updates to the database product may change the behavior of queries. We had to scramble a bit when doing a major version upgrade last year when we found that Oracle 10 returned GROUP BY results in a different order than did Oracle 9. Reason - no ORDER BY clause.
ORDER BY - when the order of the returned data really matters.
The simple answer is that the SQL standard says that there is no default order for queries that do not have an ORDER BY statement, so you should never assume one.
The real reason would probably relate to the hashes assigned to each row as it is pulled into the record set. There is no reason to assume consistent hashing.
if you don't use ORDER BY, the order is arbitrary; however, dependent on phisical storage and memory aspects.
so, if you repeat the same query hundreds of times in 10 minutes, you will get almost the same order everytime, because probably nothing changes.
Things that could change the "noorder order" are:
the executing plan - if is changed(you have pointed
that)
inserts and deletes on the tables involved in the query.
other things like presence in memory of the rows.(other querys on other tables could influence that)
When you get into parallel data retrieval I/O isn't it possible to get different sequences on different runs, even with no change to the stored data?
That is, in a multiprocessing environment the order of completion of parallel threads is undefined and can vary with what else is happening on the same shared processor.
As I'm new to Oracle database engine, I noticed this behavior in my SELECT statements that has no ORDER BY.
I've been using Microsoft SQL Server for years now. SQL Server Engine always will retrieve data ordered by the table's "Clustered Index" which is basically the Primary Key Index. SQL Server will always insert new data in a sequential order based on the clustered index.
So when you perform a select on a table without order by in SQL Server, it will always retrieve data ordered by primary key value.
ORDER BY can cause serious performance overhead, that's why you do not want to use it unless you are not happy with inconsistent results order.
I ended up with a conclusion that in ALL my Oracle queries I must use ORDER BY or I will end up with unpredicted order which will greatly effect my end-user reports.