Right right. No, what I meant was leaving the :order clause of the association off (not the whole order clause). Sort of like it leaves the association's JOINs off in order to get the correct LIMIT and OFFSET, but adds them to the final query.
On 7/1/07, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You are more familiar with the code than me, so I could be overlooking > > something here. However if you append association :order to the end > > of the ORDER clause, it shouldn't affect the main :order specified in > > the base query. Likewise, leaving the assocation :order it out of the > > ID-fetching query ensures we get the right number of, and correct base > > objects. If I'm totally missing your point please explain. > > Leaving the order out of the id-fetching query means you're paging > through the list, *then* sorting. So if you have a limit of three, > and ordering by name, you could easily see: > > Page 1 > * Marcus > * Michael > * Stephen > > Page 2 > * Aaron > * James > * Oliver > > Page 3 > * Adam > * Scott > * Thomas > > That's quite a counter intuitive result if someone's clicked to order > by name and paging through the system. > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > > > > -- Gabe da Silveira http://darwinweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
