Message-
> From: Wes James [mailto:compte...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:03 PM
> To: mysql general discussion
> Subject: sort order
>
> I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
> utf8-unicod
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Wes James wrote:
>
>> I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
>> utf8-unicode doesn't seem to be right. It is sorting some text like this
>> (order by title):
>>
>> !
>> !
mines the sorting order.
>
> Carlos Proal
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Wes James wrote:
>
>> I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
>> utf8-unicode doesn't seem to be
0.1 installed, but the sort order for
> utf8-unicode doesn't seem to be right. It is sorting some text like this
> (order by title):
>
> !
> ! *`-=[];',./~@#$%^&()_+{}|:"<>?\
> !"
> ![
> !@
> !a
> !A
> !t
> !test
&g
I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
utf8-unicode doesn't seem to be right. It is sorting some text like this
(order by title):
!
! *`-=[];',./~@#$%^&()_+{}|:"<>?\
!"
![
!@
!a
!A
!t
!test
'Coal age'
[
\--\
10
Hi Nishi,
I think what's more relevant is why did you downgrade to 5.0.22? The
sorting issue you're experiencing was fixed for the 5.0.67 community
release. Many bugs will have been fixed between 5.0.22 and 5.0.51a;
downgrading is not a solution. Upgrade. If this is a new system you
could
Its been a while since I posted this. Would like to check again with the
folks on this list if they know why the results of query (b) are all
blank on MySQL 5.0.22. It works fine with 5.0.51a. If it is a bug in
5.0.22, can someone suggest a workaround for this (other than upgrading
MySQL).
Thanks
Nishi,
There was a bug in that version that affected the sort order when
combined with a group by statement
(http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32202.) There are a couple of
workarounds but they are bad (e.g. removing primary key!)
I would strongly suggest you upgrade to 5.0.67 or possi
3 |4 | ddd |
I do not understand why (b) is not able to retain the same order of sn
as in (a). I am assuming it is the 'HAVING sn=2' that is forcing (b)
to reset the sort order. However, (c) is able to maintain the same sn
order as in (a) even with 'HAVING sn=2' c
Hi Nishi,
There was a bug in that version that affected the sort order when
combined with a group by statement
(http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32202.) There are a couple of
workarounds but they are bad (e.g. removing primary key!)
I would strongly suggest you upgrade to 5.0.67 or
(c) DO @sn := 0;
SELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t HAVING sn=2 ORDER BY id desc;
|3 |4 | ddd |
I do not understand why (b) is not able to retain the same order of sn
as in (a). I am assuming it is the 'HAVING sn=2' that is forcing (b) to
reset the sort order.
Oh, and here's the output (Sorry):
+---+-+
| releaseid | name|
+---+-+
| 1 | Unspecified |
| 2 | Next Patch |
| 3 | LOCset |
| 4 | Abashiri|
|
Here's my full test solution:
use test;
drop table if exists releases;
create temporary table releases
(
releaseid int(10) unsigned not null auto_increment primary key,
name varchar(255)
)engine=myisam;
insert into releases ( name ) values
( 'Unspecified' ),
( 'Next Patch' ),
(
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: Daevid Vincent
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Need help with a "natural sort order" for
> version numbers and release code
Daevid Vincent wrote:
I'm trying to get some 'release/version numbers' to sort properly.
mysql> SELECT ReleaseID, Name FROM releases ORDER BY Name DESC;
+---+-+
| ReleaseID | Name|
+---+-+
|18 | Unspecifie
I'm trying to get some 'release/version numbers' to sort properly.
mysql> SELECT ReleaseID, Name FROM releases ORDER BY Name DESC;
+---+-+
| ReleaseID | Name|
+---+-+
|18 | Unspecified |
|20
In the last episode (Dec 13), Jacek Becla said:
> Is there a way to find which index was used to sort
> MyISAM table (suppose someone run
> "myisamchk --sort-index --sort-records=2" in the past,
> how to find that sorting was done based on index #2?)
You can run a "select * from mytable" and see w
Hi,
Is there a way to find which index was used to sort
MyISAM table (suppose someone run
"myisamchk --sort-index --sort-records=2" in the past,
how to find that sorting was done based on index #2?)
And a related question: how to determine which is
the index "#2"? I guess if I look at the order
2:01 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: finding a record within a sort order
I have a table with a large number of rows. I have the primary key for a
record within the table. The record I'm looking for looks like this:
+++---+
y to pass this
information into an OFFSET value, as my end goal is retrieve a page from
the table in the given sort order starting with the record whose id I
have -- with a single SQL statement. Obviously, this isn't legal syntax:
SELECT * FROM CONTACTS ORDER BY fullname LIMIT 10 OFFSET
`SELE
those links help you because I do not understand your question.
Respectfully,
Ligaya Turmelle
---
Life is a game... so have fun.
---
www.PHPCommunity.org
Open Source, Open Community
Visit for more information or to join the movement
Dave Dyer wrote:
Is there a trick to remember the sort order? I wa
Is there a trick to remember the sort order? I want
to update some field to be the ordinal of the record according
to some sort criteria.
update record set ordinal=CURRENT_ROW() order by xx
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe
.
Then when it come to changing the sort order values I will simply swap
it with the value of the previous or next one.
So only 2 updates.
The only thing I need to look out for is not to allow them to try and
move the first row up... or the last row down.
Thanks for the help,
Mike
--
MySQL General
Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
I'm trying to create the most efficient way to allow a user to change
the display order of a group of rows in a table.
Lets say the basic table is:
id
group_id
name
sort_order
The query to display it would be
"SELECT id, name FROM mytable WHERE group_id = $x ORDER BY s
I wouldn't use a loop but an UPDATE statement instead.
If I understand you correctly, all of your records are in the same group
but you need them displayed in a user-defined order. It would be MUCH
easier to manage that if the sort order values were already in sequential
order. You may
I'm trying to create the most efficient way to allow a user to change
the display order of a group of rows in a table.
Lets say the basic table is:
id
group_id
name
sort_order
The query to display it would be
"SELECT id, name FROM mytable WHERE group_id = $x ORDER BY sort_order"
Now when I displa
4 special characters of Farsi language
correctly.So my question is that : IS it possible to define new sort order
instead of the default sort order Like the one we can do in Oracle with
NLS_LANG and NLS_SORT_ORDER
I will appreciate anybody to help me.
Thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For
At 6:33 PM -0700 9/14/03, Scott Haneda wrote:
on 09/14/2003 06:14 PM, Paul DuBois at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ORDER BY IF(sort_order IS NULL,1,0), sort_order, added;
select title, sort_order from resources order by IF(sort_order IS NULL,1,0)
sort_order ASC limit 5;
ERROR 1064: You have an error i
ld have
to make alterations to my admin interface to allow NULL to be input on new
record creation. I don't really want to do this.
Okay, but you were the one who (in your previous message) stated
that you wanted to know how to sort NULL at one end or the other...
Is there any way to have a ASC s
on 09/14/2003 06:14 PM, Paul DuBois at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ORDER BY IF(sort_order IS NULL,1,0), sort_order, added;
select title, sort_order from resources order by IF(sort_order IS NULL,1,0)
sort_order ASC limit 5;
ERROR 1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax near 'sort_order ASC limi
alterations to my admin interface to allow NULL to be input on new
record creation. I don't really want to do this.
Is there any way to have a ASC sort order that sends 0 to the end, and sorts
on 1-9? I know a strange reque
||
+-+---+--+-+-++
My sql is order by sort_oder ASC, added;
At first, I had no value set for the default in sort_order, but those came
up first. I am looking to get a ascending sort order that will ignore the
reocrd, or basically shove it to the end of the sort if it is empty or null.
sort_order is an
, added;
At first, I had no value set for the default in sort_order, but those came
up first. I am looking to get a ascending sort order that will ignore the
reocrd, or basically shove it to the end of the sort if it is empty or null.
Can this be done? Or is my only option in this case to set it
>Description:
When i using default-character-set tis620 (Thai sort order) mysql server
has been crash and then I test to use latin1 can work fine but can't
sort order in thai language.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Submitter-Id:
>Originator:
Did you try a straight join so MySQL won't swap the order of the tables?
Philip Smolen wrote:
>Right. The simple example listed at the bottom of this message works great
>under version 4. Version 3 gave the right answer, but it was very slow.
>That made me upgrade to version 4.
>
>However, eve
PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Forcing a sort order in a join
> Using DESC on an index only works with V 4.
>
> Philip Smolen wrote:
>
> >I'm trying to make a query faster. It seems simple, but I can
Using DESC on an index only works with V 4.
Philip Smolen wrote:
>I'm trying to make a query faster. It seems simple, but I can't make it
>work.
>
>This is a common case for me:
>SELECT *
>FROM very_large_table
>WHERE (simple_condition)
>ORDER BY an_indexed_field DESC
>LIMIT 5;
>For simple quer
Given the following table:
Name varchar(128),
CodePageEncoding varchar(32)
that a select like this could be done
select Name, CodePageEncoding
from table
group by CodePageEncoding
order by CODE_PAGE_SENSITIVE_FUNCTION(CodePageEncoding, Name);
This would produce a report/resultset like the foll
38 matches
Mail list logo
