Обсуждение: Document ordering guarantees on INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING clause
Hi all,
I've seen various discussions around whether PG makes any guarantees on the ordering of rows returned by the RETURNING clause (e.g. [1]). In a nutshell, when executing a statement such as the following:
CREATE TABLE foo (id INT PRIMARY KEY GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY, data INT);
INSERT INTO foo (data) VALUES (8), (9), (10) RETURNING id, data;
INSERT INTO foo (data) VALUES (8), (9), (10) RETURNING id, data;
... us the INSERT guaranteed to return the rows (1,8), (2,9) and (3,10) (and in that order)? This point is important when inserting multiple rows and wanting to e.g. match a database-generated ID back to memory structures on the client.
FWIW I've received feedback from a SQL Server engineer that one definitely should *not* depend on such ordering there, and that future optimizations (e.g. parallel insertion of many rows) could result in row ordering which differs from the lexical ordering of the VALUES clause. That seems very reasonable; if the situation is similar on PostgreSQL, then I'd suggest making that very clear in the INSERT[2] and UPDATE[3] docs. I'd also possibly point to the workaround of wrapping the INSERT/UPDATE in a CTE which then defines the ordering.
Thanks,
Shay
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 5:42 AM Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> wrote:
FWIW I've received feedback from a SQL Server engineer that one definitely should *not* depend on such ordering there, and that future optimizations (e.g. parallel insertion of many rows) could result in row ordering which differs from the lexical ordering of the VALUES clause.
That seems very reasonable; if the situation is similar on PostgreSQL, then I'd suggest making that very clear in the INSERT[2] and UPDATE[3] docs.
There is clearly no mention of such a guarantee in our documentation.
David J.
Hi, On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 06:25:22AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 5:42 AM Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> wrote: > > > FWIW I've received feedback from a SQL Server engineer that one definitely > > should *not* depend on such ordering there, and that future optimizations > > (e.g. parallel insertion of many rows) could result in row ordering which > > differs from the lexical ordering of the VALUES clause. > > > > > > That seems very reasonable; if the situation is similar on PostgreSQL, > > then I'd suggest making that very clear in the INSERT[2] and UPDATE[3] docs. > > > > There is clearly no mention of such a guarantee in our documentation. Yes, which is just how SQL works: a set doesn't have any ordering unless an explicit one has been defined, RETURNING is no exception to that.
> > > That seems very reasonable; if the situation is similar on PostgreSQL,
> > > then I'd suggest making that very clear in the INSERT[2] and UPDATE[3] docs.
> >
> > There is clearly no mention of such a guarantee in our documentation.
>
> Yes, which is just how SQL works: a set doesn't have any ordering unless an
> explicit one has been defined, RETURNING is no exception to that.
Thanks for confirming that such a guarantee doesn't exist. I would still suggest explicitly calling that out in the docs around RETURNING, since that seems like an understand pitfall; personally-speaking, this certainly wasn't clear to me when first looking at it (even if it is now).