Getting an "ordered LISTOF" would require building a temporary view to order the results then executing the LISTOF function against that set.
Emmitt Dove Manager, Converting Applications Development Evergreen Packaging, Inc. [email protected] (203) 214-5683 m (203) 643-8022 o (203) 643-8086 f [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence Lustig Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:15 To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: LISTOF question << the table is currently ordered (an unlikely to ever get out of order because the PK is an autonumber). >> No table is ever ordered in R:Base (or any other SQL based RDBMS). The SQL specification specifically states that relations have no natural order. In R:Base, the apparent order of the table will change depending on the nature of the query you execute: index-only queries, for instance, will return their results in index order. Also, rows are moved around for reasons that may not be immediately clear (for instance, when a NOTE field is updated). << I still don't see why R:BASE does not sort the LISTOF. >> R:Base is sorting the LISTOF query. The result set is: LISTOF(part_id) --------------- 4,1,5,2,9,3,7 and R:Base is putting that in order for you. The row "4,1,5,2,9,3,7" sorts first in that result set (it also sorts last, of course, since there's only one row). When you issue the command without the LISTOF, what R:Base does is: 1. Build a list of rows for the result set (there are seven). 2. Put them in order. When you issue the command with the LISTOF, R:Base follows the exact same procedure: 1. Build a list of rows for the result set (there is only one). 2. Put them in order. This confused the heck out of me the first few times I used LISTOF in this way, but once I thought about it I realized what order things were happening in and why the results made sense. -- Larry
