On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
>> For that call the sorting is done in the database (not cached), so there's
>> probably a difference in databases or database configs.
>
> Not entirely accurate. The first match on a condition/entity is
> cached, as it is returned from the database. If a later call is only
> different on the ordering, then the system just reorders in memory
> from the previously cached query.
I don't understand your reply or how it applies to what I wrote. I didn't write
anything about how sorting in the cache worked, just that it wasn't relevant
because the call below was not cached. Could you explain?
-David
>
>> On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Divesh Dutta wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Developers,
>>>
>>> I see an strange issue on Release 9.04. But that issue does not exists on
>>> latest OFBiz trunk. Below is brief description of issue:
>>>
>>> 1) When I use any of the method (like findList or findByAnd) of
>>> DelegatorImpl.java class , and sort it by "sequenceNum", For eg in
>>> EditProductFeatures.groovy: (Release 9.04)
>>>
>>> context.productFeatureAndAppls =
>>> delegator.findList('ProductFeatureAndAppl',
>>> EntityCondition.makeCondition([productId : productId]), null,
>>> ['sequenceNum', 'productFeatureApplTypeId', 'productFeatureTypeId',
>>> 'description'], null, false);
>>>
>>> It returns me the list of values, with *Not-Null values at the top* , and
>>> then it sort in Ascending order by "sequenceNum", ......
>>>
>>> 2) But When I use Latest trunk in OFBiz: Using same example, It returns me
>>> the list sorted by "sequenceNum", .... in ascending order and then
>>> *Not-null values at the bottom
>>>
>>> *3) I think this is the major bug in Release 9.04, because if we think at
>>> application level, if a catagory has over 800 products, Catalog Manager
>>> will have to go to the last page, to sequence every single product for it
>>> to show properly on the front end.
>>>
>>> 4) Instead if Catalog Manager want to sequence the products, he will
>>> arrange them at very first page.
>>>
>>> 5) I tried to found the reason of this major difference, but could not
>>> locate the exact fix in any of the commit. So I request all the developers,
>>> if any one have any idea regarding this please share your views here. Also
>>> I think this should be fixed in Release 9.04 as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>> Divesh Dutta.
>>>
>>
>
