Thanks Dan, That is actually what I was thinking, but wanted to check here as well. I will test with your suggestion tomorrow.
On Dec 13, 5:46 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > You're assuming that the ordering is numeric, when the column is > likely being interpreted as character data. You have to work at it a > bit to get Sqlite to order numerically -- I don't offhand recall the > tricks, but they're probably out there if you Google them. (Try > "ORDER BY (sigma + 0)".) > > (It may be that the values you're inserting are being seen as > character. Eg, '-38.125' rather than -38.125.) > > On Dec 13, 7:31 pm, swgillan <swgil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > I came across something really odd, that I just can't seem to figure > > out. I am performing a query using rawQuery and also the query method > > (just for consistency to test this problem). In both cases, when I > > ORDER BY a column with negative numbers, the ASC and DESC appear to be > > backwards (as if the column was taking the absolute value and then > > ordering based on that). > > > I am a little confused, and haven't found any other examples of it > > happening. I am including the rawQuery and also the output using the > > column with non-negative values (how I expect it to look), and the > > same query with ordering by a column with negative numbers, which > > clearly aren't sorted highest to lowest. > > > SELECT * FROM w_local_data WHERE ap_id = 931 ORDER BY sigma DESC; // > > highest to lowest based on sigma column > > > _id cell_id ap_id mu > > sigma > > ---------- ---------- ---------- > > ----------------- ---------------- > > 157 994 931 -58.6315789473684 9.00999752506415 > > 240 998 931 -57.1818181818182 7.15818897637437 > > 318 1273 931 -73.9722222222222 5.59506782359403 > > 141 993 931 -38.125 > > 5.49857936198069 > > 187 995 931 -66.5333333333333 5.40205722130211 > > 205 996 931 -55.2592592592593 5.35822381151311 > > 303 1001 931 -60.7391304347826 5.07523733695923 > > 29 988 931 -45.7878787878788 5.03778195395659 > > 52 989 931 -61.9655172413793 4.5370715043858 > > 259 999 931 -71.2 > > 4.53431361950185 > > 75 990 931 -44.7878787878788 4.13233792332868 > > 100 991 931 -56.6363636363636 3.62498218861398 > > 286 1000 931 -72.1176470588235 3.39346002396611 > > 5 987 931 -53.5454545454545 2.81867053435963 > > > SELECT * FROM w_local_data WHERE ap_id = 931 ORDER BY mu DESC; // > > highest to lowest based on mu column > > > _id cell_id ap_id mu > > sigma > > ---------- ---------- ---------- > > ----------------- ---------------- > > 318 1273 931 -73.9722222222222 5.59506782359403 > > 286 1000 931 -72.1176470588235 3.39346002396611 > > 259 999 931 -71.2 > > 4.53431361950185 > > 187 995 931 -66.5333333333333 5.40205722130211 > > 52 989 931 -61.9655172413793 4.5370715043858 > > 303 1001 931 -60.7391304347826 5.07523733695923 > > 157 994 931 -58.6315789473684 9.00999752506415 > > 240 998 931 -57.1818181818182 7.15818897637437 > > 100 991 931 -56.6363636363636 3.62498218861398 > > 205 996 931 -55.2592592592593 5.35822381151311 > > 5 987 931 -53.5454545454545 2.81867053435963 > > 29 988 931 -45.7878787878788 5.03778195395659 > > 75 990 931 -44.7878787878788 4.13233792332868 > > 141 993 931 -38.125 > > 5.49857936198069; > > > Below is also a test I ran on my Master DB (MySQL) on my server that > > had the same data in it. Here I am getting a return sorted correctly, > > highest to lowest by negative numbers. > > > SELECT cell_id, mu FROM w_venue_localization_data WHERE ap_id = 931 > > ORDER BY mu DESC; > > +---------+-------------------+ > > | cell_id | mu | > > +---------+-------------------+ > > | 993 | -38.125 | > > | 990 | -44.7878787878788 | > > | 988 | -45.7878787878788 | > > | 987 | -53.5454545454545 | > > | 996 | -55.2592592592593 | > > | 991 | -56.6363636363636 | > > | 998 | -57.1818181818182 | > > | 994 | -58.6315789473684 | > > | 1001 | -60.7391304347826 | > > | 989 | -61.9655172413793 | > > | 995 | -66.5333333333333 | > > | 999 | -71.2 | > > | 1000 | -72.1176470588235 | > > | 1273 | -73.9722222222222 | > > +---------+-------------------+ > > > If anyone can help shed some light on this for me, it would be much > > appreciated. As a temporary workaround, I just use ASC as opposed to > > DESC, but that seems a bit counter-intuitive when someone else looks > > at the code. I have spent a good portion of my time searching on this, > > but haven't come up with any explanation. At this point, it appears to > > me to be a bug, but before going through steps to create a ticket I > > thought I would ask around first to see if it was just something I did > > wrong. > > > Regards, > > > Steven Gillan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
