Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 704205
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T03:54:56+00:00 2026-05-14T03:54:56+00:00

I have a huge table and I want simple sorting. It could be so

  • 0

I have a huge table and I want simple sorting.

It could be so easy. I could just create an index and do some really fast sorting thanks to that index.

But my client wants to put NULLs to the end, which is complicates the whole situation.

Instead of simple: SORT BY name ASC I have to do SORT BY name IS NULL ASC, name ASC. That would be ok, but it because of that my index is useless, and the sorting is very slow.

I don’t know if there’s a way to solve this problem, but if there is one, I desperately ask for help. :'(

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T03:54:57+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 3:54 am

    UNION ALL is not guaranteed to preserve the record order, but with current implementation the final ORDER BY will amount just to a single pass over already ordered fields:

    SELECT  *
    FROM    (
            SELECT  1 AS source, *
            FROM    user
            WHERE   name IS NOT NULL
            ORDER BY
                    name
            )
    UNION ALL
    SELECT  2 AS source, *
    FROM    user
    WHERE   name IS NULL
    ORDER BY
            source, name
    

    Omitting the final ORDER BY may break your application in the future.

    This is probably one of the rare cases when it’s better to split the query in two on the client side.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.