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. >>> >> >