Why does removing the ORDER BY significantly speed up this query?

I have the following query (some of it is code-generated so pardon the poor formatting):

SELECT DISTINCT COALESCE(gi.start_time, '') start_time,
COALESCE(b.name, '') bank,
COALESCE(a.id, '') account_id,
COALESCE(a.account_number, '') account_number,
COALESCE(at.code, '') account_type,
COALESCE(a.open_date, '') open_date,
COALESCE(a.interest_rate, '') interest_rate,
COALESCE(a.maturity_date, '') maturity_date,
COALESCE(a.opening_balance, '') opening_balance,
COALESCE(a.has_e_statement, '') has_e_statement,
COALESCE(a.has_bill_pay, '') has_bill_pay,
COALESCE(a.has_overdraft_protection, '') has_overdraft_protection,
COALESCE(a.balance, '') balance,
COALESCE(a.business_or_personal, '') business_or_personal,
COALESCE(a.cumulative_balance, '') cumulative_balance,
COALESCE(c.customer_number, '') customer_number,
COALESCE(c.social_security_number, '') social_security_number,
COALESCE(c.name, '') customer_name,
COALESCE(c.phone, '') phone,
COALESCE(c.deceased, '') deceased,
COALESCE(c.do_not_mail, '') do_not_mail,
COALESCE(cdob.date_of_birth, '') date_of_birth,
COALESCE(ad.line1, '') line1,
COALESCE(ad.line2, '') line2,
COALESCE(ad.city, '') city,
COALESCE(s.name, '') state,
COALESCE(ad.zip, '') zip,
COALESCE(o.officer_number, '') officer_number,
COALESCE(o.name, '') officer_name,
COALESCE(po.line1, '') po_box,
COALESCE(po.city, '') po_city,
COALESCE(po_state.name, '') po_state,
COALESCE(po.zip, '') zip,
COALESCE(br.number, '') branch_number,
COALESCE(cd_type.code, '') cd_type,
COALESCE(mp.product_number, '') macatawa_product_number,
COALESCE(mp.product_name, '') macatawa_product_name,
COALESCE(pt.name, '') macatawa_product_type,
COALESCE(hhsc.name, '') harte_hanks_service_category,
COALESCE(mp.hoh_hierarchy, '') hoh_hierarchy,
COALES开发者_Python百科CE(cft.name, '') core_file_type,
COALESCE(oa.line1, '') original_address_line1,
COALESCE(oa.line2, '') original_address_line2,
COALESCE(uc.code, '') use_class
            FROM account a
            JOIN customer c ON a.customer_id = c.id
            JOIN officer o ON a.officer_id = o.id
            JOIN account_address aa ON aa.account_id = a.id
       LEFT JOIN account_po_box apb ON apb.account_id = a.id                
            JOIN address ad ON aa.address_id = ad.id
            JOIN original_address oa ON oa.address_id = ad.id
       LEFT JOIN address po ON apb.address_id = po.id
            JOIN state s ON s.id = ad.state_id
       LEFT JOIN state po_state ON po_state.id = po.state_id
       LEFT JOIN branch br ON a.branch_id = br.id
            JOIN account_import ai ON a.account_import_id = ai.id
            JOIN generic_import gi ON gi.id = ai.generic_import_id
            JOIN import_bundle ib ON gi.import_bundle_id = ib.id
            JOIN bank b ON b.id = ib.bank_id
       LEFT JOIN customer_date_of_birth cdob ON cdob.customer_id = c.id
       LEFT JOIN cd_type ON a.cd_type_id = cd_type.id
       LEFT JOIN account_macatawa_product amp ON amp.account_id = a.id
       LEFT JOIN macatawa_product mp ON mp.id = amp.macatawa_product_id
       LEFT JOIN product_type pt ON pt.id = mp.product_type_id
       LEFT JOIN harte_hanks_service_category hhsc ON hhsc.id = mp.harte_hanks_service_category_id
       LEFT JOIN core_file_type cft ON cft.id = mp.core_file_type_id
       LEFT JOIN use_class uc ON a.use_class_id = uc.id
       LEFT JOIN account_type at ON a.account_type_id = at.id

         WHERE 1
           AND gi.active = 1
           AND b.id = 8 AND ib.is_finished = 1
      ORDER BY a.id
         LIMIT 10

I have indexes on all the appropriate columns, including account.id AKA a.id. Despite this fact, my query significantly speeds up (it goes from 10 seconds to 0 seconds) if I remove the ORDER BY. Why is this?

Because with the ORDER BY, it has to retrieve all the rows to sort them to get the first 10 by a.id. Without the ORDER BY, it can simply retrieve the first 10 rows it finds and ignore the rest.

Also, be careful when profiling queries: the first can fill the cache with data, and subsequent queries go faster not because the SQL is different, but because it's pulling data from the cache instead of the disk.