Don Baccus wrote:
> But ... that doesn't mean that some folks might not want to use
> it differently. What if LIMIT 2 were more efficient that COUNT(*)
> in order to determine if more than one row satisfies a condition?
select count(*) > 1 from a;
And if that's not efficient, why not optimise _that_, since it
expresses directly what you want?
> But I wouldn't feel badly at all if LIMIT limited to queries
> with ORDER BY. I think this could be done gramatically, i.e.
>
> [query] ORDER BY
If you are going to limit it thus, it only makes sense if you
either order by a unique key or order by every single column.
Otherwise, why limit it at all? And that can't be determined
gramatically.
