> (class +UrlTag +Macropisobj)
> (rel id (+Key +Number))
> (rel url (+Ref +Link) NIL (+Url))
> (rel usr (+Ref +Link) NIL (+User))
> (rel tag (+Aux +Ref +Link) (usr) NIL (+Tag))
> SELECT * FROM UrlTag WHERE usr = Usr ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 0,50
> I manage everything apart from the ordering of the result correctly.
> I thought this select would order things in descending order:
> (select (@Obj)
> ((id +UrlTag (T . NIL)) (usr +UrlTag @Usr))
> (same @Usr @Obj usr) )
No. If you 'select' by more than one index (here 'id' and 'usr'), the order of
the results is not predictable, because both indexes are searched in parallel.
We have two possibilities:
1. If there are not too many expected results, you can first 'select' or
'collect' all of them, and sort them in memory, e.g.
(by '((This) (- (: id))) sort (collect 'usr '+UrlTag Usr))
(flip (by '((This) (: id)) sort (collect 'usr '+UrlTag Usr)))
(I usually use 'flip' instead of the negative key)
2. If you expect too many results, so that you don't want to load them all into
memory at once, you need a dedicated index with the desired ordering. You
have already an '+Aux' in your model, but then you need also 'id' for 'usr':
(rel usr (+Aux +Ref +Link) (id) NIL (+User))
Here you can also 'collect' (if there are not many results) from the
index of 'Usr'
(collect 'usr '+UrlTag Usr)
to get increasing id's, or - for your case -
(collect 'usr '+UrlTag (list Usr T) (list Usr))
for decreasing id's. Again, for many results, you 'select' or simply 'db'
(db usr +UrlTag ((@Usr T) @Usr) @Obj)
Not tested, I hope there are not too many errors.