Comments on: PostgreSQL: UPDATE a table using ORDER BY

By: Developer Blog: Ordered updates with Postgres

Developer Blog: Ordered updates with Postgres — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:05:34 +0000

[...] in the alphabetical order given by a text string column. With postgres 8.4 the solution using an updateable, ordered view didn't work (anymore?). After experimenting a little I found that clustering a table according to [...]

By: Project management and web design | Project management and time tracking blog for web designers and small business :: the Intervals Blog by Pelago

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:40:39 +0000

[...] Pelago Blog :: web development links and random tidbits from the creative minds of Team Pelago Says: December 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am [...]

By: Mike T

Mike T — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:43:31 +0000

Another good strategy is to use a self-sub-select, as described http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/UPDATE-FROM-will-ORDER-BY-not-respected-td1917581.html

Sorta like:

UPDATE impt_table
SET id = newid
FROM
(
SELECT foo.seq,
nextval(”id_seq”) AS newid
(SELECT seq
FROM impt_table
WHERE id IS NULL
ORDER BY seq
) AS foo
) ASempty_ids
WHERE
impt_table.seq = empty_ids.seq
AND impt_table.id IS NULL;

By: Dexel

Dexel — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:00:21 +0000

order by ignore!

By: jasper

jasper — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:34:01 +0000

Hi,

I tried this solution over and over again, i just cant get it to work. If I do a SELECT query on my newly created view, it shows all the data ordered like it supposed to be. But when executing an update against the view (with the rule in place) it just seems to ignore the order in the view. So i end up with exactly the same result as i would have executing an update query against the normal table?
I am using postgres 8.4.2, not sure if that changes anything.

Any help would be appreciated!

By: Christian

Christian — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:37:46 +0000

You saved my day!
Thank you for this useful information.