Probably because it’s the row offset, meaning as in displacement, expressed in number or rows from the start of the result, and not the row number?
Our implementation interprets “offset” as the number of rows skipped. Therefore “OFFSET 0 LIMIT 10” and “OFFSET 10 LIMIT 10” return the first 10 rows and the second 10 rows (i.e. 11-20) respectively. I consider that logical. Thomas, I do not fully understand your position: do you believe the phrasing is weird, but it consistent with common sense and our implementation, or some other combination between those 3 situations?
There is this para in the text:
“The LIMIT row_count OFFSET offset is used to get results in a paginated way. For instance, when offset = 0 and row_count = 10, the result will have at most 10 items, starting with item 0. Then with offset = 10 and row_count = 10, the result will contain 10 items at most, now from item 10 to 19. So increasing offset by row_count, allows to get all the results in a paginated way.“
Here, the first item is designated as the 0-th item, meaning that LIMIT 10 obtains rows 0-9 - which I find strange. Why wouldn’t it be 1 - 10?
I agree, within the text, the first item should be “item 1”.
ok, agree and fixed the text. hopefully is not better and clear.