I solve this with views and exclude rows where values fail and/or EQ 0 a.s.o
Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Karen Tellef Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2013 15:12 An: RBASE-L Mailing List Betreff: [RBASE-L] - Re: Sorting conundrum I thought of that, but Zero On won't work. That would put it between the positive and the negative numbers. I need it to be at the end because there is NO number. Think I'll have to sort on a dummy column and assign a huge negative number to get it at the end. Although now that I think of it, I do have ZERO ON anyway. So that helps in math situations, but not for sorting. Karen -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Fritz Luettgens < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> To: RBASE-L Mailing List < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 2:40 am Subject: [RBASE-L] - AW: [RBASE-L] - Sorting conundrum Hi Karen, this is why I work with SET ZERO ON, give it a try J Fritz Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> ] Im Auftrag von Karen Tellef Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2013 01:44 An: RBASE-L Mailing List Betreff: [RBASE-L] - Sorting conundrum Using 9.5, 32-bit I'm putting up a data browser, and it is sorting by a currency column DESCENDING. Many of these rows will have nulls in that column. Sorting in Descending order puts the nulls at the top of the list; I'd rather they went at the bottom. I can probably screw around with adding another column to this temp table, assigning a dummy huge negative number to force the sorting, but I'm wondering if there's a "set" command or something that would help me on this. Karen
