Shouldn’t the collection of rows be a set or list, not a dictionary?
That said, you disagreed with my question then went on to show my question was on point.
The “rows themself” being an ordered map means you are referring to the columns, the order being set by the SELECT clause or table definition order (in case of wildcard).
That said, I personally feel iterating over table columns in that way to be a “bad code smell”. Not saying it’s bad in all cases, but generally it’s an anti-pattern to me.
Order-significance is exactly how the relational model was defined in the beginning
"An array which represents an n-ary relation R has the following properties:
1. Each row represents an n-tuple of R.
2. The ordering of rows is immaterial.
3. All rows are distinct.
4. The ordering of columns is significant -- it corresponds to the ordering S1, S2, ..., Sn of the domains on which R is defined (see, however, remarks below on domain-ordered and domain-unordered relations).
5. The significance of each column is partially conveyed by labeling it with the name of the corresponding domain."
-- A relational model of data for large shared data banks[1]
Perhaps you are confused and mean "columns"?
("Rows of the result set" is what I was referring to.)
A result set has rows, which are not in a deterministic order unless an "order by" is provided. Each row has columns. The columns are in order, obviously.
What? No. SQL does not return results in any consistent ordering unless specifically instructed to.