Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2002


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 43407
interpreted = N
texte = Brian,Thanks for the suggestion. The search string with the allhit definition still produces the same results. Here's the latest search string:proposal.db&eqSTATUSdatarq=ACTIVE&GROUP1field=UPDATED+PROPOSAL_DATE&rnGROUP1 datarq=731457 731471&dePROPOSAL_DATEsort=1&PROPOSAL_DATEtype=num&allhit=TThanks, Myron> Ah... Add &allhit=T to your search so that WebDNA will ignore it's > internal ranking when sorting. > > - brian > > At 5:28 PM -0600 9/13/02, Myron Hintz wrote: >> Brian, >> >> The 6th to the 7th row of the results jumps from 731463 to 731471. >> >> Myron >> >>> The type is a good thing to add, though it should be num not >>> number. (maybe number works? I've never tried it, but it's not >>> documented that way.) >>> >>> But, I don't expect this will make any difference in this case, as >>> all values shown (days since 0/0/00) will sort the same as text (at >>> least for the next 624 years). >>> >>> But I don't see anything wrong with the sort order in the sample >>> results - the PROPOSAL_DATE is sorted descending, as specified in the >>> search. >>> >>> What is the problem? >>> >>> - brian >>> >>> >>> At 10:41 AM 9/14/02, Alain Russell wrote: >>>> You need to define the field for the sort .. >>>> >>>> &PROPOSAL_DATEtype=number >>>> >>>> Alain >>>> >>>>> I am trying to build a search which will find all records where >>>>> the fields >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE or UPDATED fall in a range and then sort the results by >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE. The search string below finds all the correct records but >>>>> they are sorted incorrectly: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SEARCH_STRING:db=proposal.db&eqSTATUSdatarq=ACTIVE&GROUP1field=UPDATED+PRO >>>>> PO >>>>> SAL_DATE&rnGROUP1datarq=731457 731471&dePROPOSAL_DATEsort=1 >>>>> >>>>> Results: >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE UPDATED >>>>> 731471 731471 >>>>> 731471 731471 >>>>> 731470 731471 >>>>> 731468 731469 >>>>> 731465 731468 >>>>> 731463 731464 >>>>> 731471 >>>>> 731467 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731462 >>>>> 731462 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731454 731461 >>>>> 731399 731462 >>>>> 731218 731469 >>>>> >>>>> How can I build the search to get the results I want? >>>>> >>>>> Myron Hintz >>>>> WebCatalog Plug in 3.0.8/MAC OS 9 >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Myron Hintz 2002)
  2. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Brian Fries 2002)
  3. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Myron Hintz 2002)
  4. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Brian Fries 2002)
  5. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Myron Hintz 2002)
  6. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Brian Fries 2002)
  7. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Myron Hintz 2002)
  8. Re: Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Alain Russell 2002)
  9. Sorting when searching with grouped fields (Myron Hintz 2002)
Brian,Thanks for the suggestion. The search string with the allhit definition still produces the same results. Here's the latest search string:proposal.db&eqSTATUSdatarq=ACTIVE&GROUP1field=UPDATED+PROPOSAL_DATE&rnGROUP1 datarq=731457 731471&dePROPOSAL_DATEsort=1&PROPOSAL_DATEtype=num&allhit=TThanks, Myron> Ah... Add &allhit=T to your search so that WebDNA will ignore it's > internal ranking when sorting. > > - brian > > At 5:28 PM -0600 9/13/02, Myron Hintz wrote: >> Brian, >> >> The 6th to the 7th row of the results jumps from 731463 to 731471. >> >> Myron >> >>> The type is a good thing to add, though it should be num not >>> number. (maybe number works? I've never tried it, but it's not >>> documented that way.) >>> >>> But, I don't expect this will make any difference in this case, as >>> all values shown (days since 0/0/00) will sort the same as text (at >>> least for the next 624 years). >>> >>> But I don't see anything wrong with the sort order in the sample >>> results - the PROPOSAL_DATE is sorted descending, as specified in the >>> search. >>> >>> What is the problem? >>> >>> - brian >>> >>> >>> At 10:41 AM 9/14/02, Alain Russell wrote: >>>> You need to define the field for the sort .. >>>> >>>> &PROPOSAL_DATEtype=number >>>> >>>> Alain >>>> >>>>> I am trying to build a search which will find all records where >>>>> the fields >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE or UPDATED fall in a range and then sort the results by >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE. The search string below finds all the correct records but >>>>> they are sorted incorrectly: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SEARCH_STRING:db=proposal.db&eqSTATUSdatarq=ACTIVE&GROUP1field=UPDATED+PRO >>>>> PO >>>>> SAL_DATE&rnGROUP1datarq=731457 731471&dePROPOSAL_DATEsort=1 >>>>> >>>>> Results: >>>>> PROPOSAL_DATE UPDATED >>>>> 731471 731471 >>>>> 731471 731471 >>>>> 731470 731471 >>>>> 731468 731469 >>>>> 731465 731468 >>>>> 731463 731464 >>>>> 731471 >>>>> 731467 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731463 >>>>> 731462 >>>>> 731462 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731457 >>>>> 731454 731461 >>>>> 731399 731462 >>>>> 731218 731469 >>>>> >>>>> How can I build the search to get the results I want? >>>>> >>>>> Myron Hintz >>>>> WebCatalog Plug in 3.0.8/MAC OS 9 >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Myron Hintz

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Simple counter - how? (1997) Use of Back and Reload Buttons on ShoppingCart page? (1997) Same Database needed on two machines (2002) Error Log.db --however (1997) PCS Customer submissions ? (1997) taxrate - off by 1 cent (1997) Two options to consider (2008) WebCat2.0 acgi vs plugin (1997) Reversed words (1997) Re[2]: Enhancement Request for WebCatalog-NT (1996) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - more [date] problems (1997) problem (how to mark orders as 'opened') (1998) WebCat editing, SiteGuard & SiteEdit (1997) practicing safe queries.. (2000) Errata: WCS Newbie question (1997) Permission denied? (2004) too many nested [xxx] (1997) Options for http uploading of files (1999) trouble updating records in database (1998) Multiple Ad databases? (1997)