SQL History not sorting by timestamp; new v4 TS format ?

I was worried that  my SQL History was not accumulating post upgrade, as it did not appear as I expected.
I typically sort it by descending timestamp, but I'm finding that since installing the 4.0 production version that a different timestamp format on SQL History has taken hold, ignoring the NLS settings that I put in my preferences (which were not the default ones by the way for my territory and language, by the way).  
I migrated all my settings from the previous installation I had ...sqldev4 ea3.  previous migrations from v3 to v4 ea1 to v4 ea2 to v4 ea3 never disrupted my SQL History.
Now my recent entries are buried in the SQL History and won't show on top anymore, and the sorting by timestamp seems erratic making it impossible to see a chronological order of SQLs executed before and after the migration.
Is there a control for formatting the SQL History timestamps or do I need to go spelunking through xml files to alter a setting ?
Curiously,
Steve 

A timestamp found inside one of my older  "history.xml"  files looks like this:
<timestamp><![CDATA[12/11/13 2:18 PM]]></timestamp>
A newer one looks like this:
<timestamp><![CDATA[12/17/13 20:54]]></timestamp>
It would probably give Xquery fits reconciling the different formats, sorting, eliminating older SQLs in the history according to one's preferences inside SQL Developer 4, etc.
I'm going back to the last early adopter release just to preserve history and sequence until the tool makers resolve the timestamp and the weird sort order problem.

Similar Messages

  • History not registrated anymore, no new entries in date, also upgrade and cacheremoval etc don't fix it

    history not registrated anymore, no new entries in date, days like "today, yesterday etc " don't appear anymore,just only "history"
    in toolbar last 10entries are registrated, however not in day/week overview.
    also upgrade and cache-removal, history removal,cookies removal etc don't fix it.
    newest version of firefox, g5mac, 4.11os.
    befora a few days no problems at all. ? may be opening account on facebook or other site has caused it , but that's unclear.
    how to repair this function without deleting and reinstalling firefox andlosing all settings. is there a prefs thing i can throw away or so ?
    thanks a lot beforehand for the effort of advicing

    sorry , a bit later: some more info:
    Toepassingsbasics
    Naam Firefox
    Versie 3.6.6
    Profielmap
    Tonen in Finder
    Geïnstalleerde plug-ins
    about:plugins
    Buildconfiguratie
    about:buildconfig
    Extensies
    Naam
    Versie
    Ingeschakeld
    ID
    British English Dictionary 1.19 true [email protected]
    ReloadEvery 3.6.3 false {888d99e7-e8b5-46a3-851e-1ec45da1e644}
    Woordenboek Nederlands 2.2.0 true [email protected]
    DownloadHelper 4.7.3 true
    Aangepaste voorkeuren
    Naam
    Waarde
    browser.history_expire_days.mirror 180
    browser.history_expire_days_min 7
    browser.places.smartBookmarksVersion 2
    browser.startup.homepage_override.mstone rv:1.9.2.6
    browser.tabs.warnOnClose false
    extensions.lastAppVersion 3.6.6
    network.cookie.lifetimePolicy 1
    network.cookie.prefsMigrated true
    places.last_vacuum 1277904749
    privacy.clearOnShutdown.cookies false
    privacy.clearOnShutdown.downloads false
    privacy.clearOnShutdown.formdata false
    privacy.clearOnShutdown.history false
    privacy.clearOnShutdown.sessions false
    privacy.sanitize.migrateFx3Prefs true
    privacy.sanitize.sanitizeOnShutdown true
    privacy.sanitize.timeSpan 0

  • History not sorting correctly

    When I go to my history, and I try to go back to, say, November, it still starts with today, which means I have to go through a lot of pages to get to what I'm looking for.

    Those queries look broken in current Firefox releases.
    A query like this works properly in Firefox 17 ESR (i.e. it only shows Nov resluts), but shows extra (older and newer) results in Firefox 25, some are even not related to domains visited in the time frame.
    *place:beginTime=1383260400000000&endTime=1385852400000000&sort=3
    *place:beginTime=1383260400000000&endTime=1385852400000000&sort=3&type=1
    If you only need to see this every now and then (i.e. not too often) then you can use the SQLite Manager extension to inspect places.sqlite file and do a query.
    *SQLite Manager: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/sqlite-manager/
    See also:
    *[[/questions/835204]]

  • Is it possible to add new columns with format "Text" once a table is linked to a form

    Is it possible to add new columns with format "Text" once a table is linked to a form in Numbers for iPhone or is it impossible and thus a serious bug?(Rating stars and numeric vales seem to work.)
    Those bugs happen both for new speadsheets as well as existing onces, like the demo. When you are in the form only the numeric keyboard shows up.
    Pat from the Apple Store Rosenstrasse/Germany approved that it looks like a Bug during the Numbers Workshop I was in: It is not possible to add new columns with format "Text". I reported the error for Version 1.4 but there is no update nor do I get statement of understanding the issue.

    Hi Knochenhort,
    I see what you are talking about now. Without knowing how the program actually works, I think this is what's going on:
    When you add a new column to an already existing table (with already existing formats), the new cells come already formatted like the previous column. So when you add a column to the end of the demo table, the cells are already formatted like stars, and when you add a column to the beginning, they're already formatted like number.
    I think this is why it's different when if you add columns to a table with blank (unformatted) columns. In that case, the new cells aren't already "tainted" with a set format, so you can change to text format without issue.
    It seems like the problem is that you can't format cells that are already formatted as "number" as "text" format (even if it doesn't look like they are, because they are blank). IMO, this is a bug! This is why you don't see this issue when adding columns to a new table, because the new cells don't already come with a format.
    To workaround, you can highlight the body cells after adding the new column, and delete the cells. This will "clear" the formatting, so you can then go in the inspector, format them as text, and the correct keyboard will pop up.
    Hope that helps!

  • SQL History and timestamp order

    Hi, I have SQL Developer 12.84 (4.0.0.12).
    Sql history forces MM/DD/RR format in Timestamp instead of NLS format: DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS.
    As a consequence the sort order fails.
    Played with  C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\SQL Developer\SqlHistory files but each new entry ignores manual date changes and writes timestamp in strange format.
    Any idea?

    Already identified by developer team as:
    Bug 17740406 - SQL HISTORY TIMESTAMP NOT SORTED AS DATE FOR NON-US LOCALES
    Info based on: https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2601066 (why new thread)
    This is important drawback in SQL Developer 4 for non US users. BTW, still not fixed in build 13.30 (4.0.0.13)

  • SQL History - returning wrong statement if history is sorted

    I have searched the forum and not seen anything on this, but I have been getting the wrong SQL statement returned when I select Append/Replace.
    I have statements going back to 12-Jan-06 (using 804 since 13-Jan-06, 796 since 12-Jan-06 and 715 last year), so I don't know if I have hit the aging limit or not (I think I counted 221 entries).
    It seems to me that it works out the cursor position and then returns that statement number from the history - independently of resorting the history.
    For example, if I sort from oldest to newest (based on timestamp) and then select the bottom statement (displays as newest) and Replace, I get the oldest statement in the worksheet. If I select the top statement (displays as oldest) and Replace, I get the newest statement in the worksheet.
    This is further complicated by the fact that sorting on the Timestamp is doing an alpha-numeric sort, rather than a date sort. When sorting from oldest to newest, the bottom three timestamps are (in "oldest to newest" order) are:
    1/23/06 10:58 AM
    1/23/06 9:21 AM
    1/23/06 9:31 AM
    If I then remove the sorting, the statement returned is the correct one.

    It was great to get the fix for the SQL History returning the right statement if sorted (we got it in v1184).
    However v1215 still does a text sort on the TimeStamp column rather than a date sort, so 2PM comes before 9AM, etc.
    Also, where is the format for the TimeStamp column coming from? As someone who doesn't live in the US and thinks that days should come before months in date formats (ie DD-Mon-YYYY), I am frustrated by yet another product that uses MM/DD/YY, despite my best efforts at telling it otherwise.

  • EA3/EA2 - SQL History Timestamp column

    The formatting of the Timestamp column in the SQL History now uses the NLS Timestamp Format (yay!), but unfortunately does not cope with the seconds component of the format:
    NLS Timestamp Format is DD-Mon-YYYY HH24:MI:SSXFF
    Timestamp column in the SQL History displays as 25-Feb-2008 15:03:.
    I assume from what has previously shown in the SQL History timestamp column (2/25/08 3:03 PM) that we do not record seconds in the SQL History timestamp. I don't really have a problem with that, but can we please trim the second and sub-second components from the format?
    theFurryOne

    Just to add, this specific problem has been fixed. Hiding of sec/mill-sec information is handled by ignoring 'S/F', '.X', ':X' fields . But keeping the bug open so that a more generic fix is made which will handle symbols like '#SSXFF' in time field.

  • EA1 - SQL History Timestamp format

    Feature Request "SQL History Timestamp - NLS Date format" (Use the current NLS Date or Timestamp Format preference for formatting the Timestamp displayed in the SQL History window) is listed as Scheduled for 1.5 but has not been included.

    Rakesh,
    Thanks for the update. I assumed that it hadn't been done yet, as it is using a different "default" NLS date format from the results tab, which also is not picking up the NLS date format preference.

  • 30EA1: New SQL History?

    Hi,
    The SQL History from previous versions is not retained, but luckily not physically deleted either. It seems 3.0 has a new system? (If so, please remember to include it in the migration process before release!)
    Thanks,
    K.

    In my case I can see what looks like migrated SQL History (based on dates and content) but none of the new SQL statements are being shown. I could live without the migrated statements if I could get new statements to show up.

  • SharePoint 2010 SQL Data View will not sort text columns

    Hello All,
    This is a comment not a question. 
    I was hitting my head against the wall for a couple hours with this one.  Data View worked fine until I tried to sort it by one of the test columns in the data.  After much research I figured that it had to be a data type issue.  Sure enough
    I found that the database table was still using the text data type. This has been deprecated but still works in SQL.  Not in SharePoint!  I hope this will help someone.
    Thanks,
    Michelle Metzger

    did you check this post, 
    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sharepoint/en-US/5f8003a0-f845-4fb6-8b43-a0a234bcb1ea/the-execute-permission-was-denied-on-the-object-multiple-alerts?forum=sharepointadminprevious
    Please remember to mark your question as answered &Vote helpful,if this solves/helps your problem. ****************************************************************************************** Thanks -WS MCITP(SharePoint 2010, 2013) Blog: http://wscheema.com/blog

  • Mail Not Sorting new Folders Added Alphbetically

    Hello! I have tons of sub folders in my inbox, and I would like it to sort them all alphabetically. This was all fine, but recently the last 6 folders I added to the list were appended to the bottom of the list, and not sorted alphabetically with the rest of the sub folders. Is there anyway I can reapply the sort alphabetically feature to the folder list? I cannot seem to find it anywhere.
    Troubleshooting steps I have taken:
    1) Closed and restarted Mail App
    2) Restarted Computer
    3) Added another new folder and it is still appended to bottom of list even after all the reboots
    4) Mail is confirmed to work
    Any help would be great. Thanks!

    Hi,
    I'm not sure, but I suspect the new Snow Leopard feature ...
    http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html#mail
    ... that lets you move folders around manually might be what's causing the weird behavior.
    In Leopard, you could move a folder inside another folder but, otherwise, they would always stay in alphabetical order, I think.
    Anyways, in Snow Leopard (and Leopard for that matter), there's an invisible file around ~/Library/Mail/<name of your email account>/.mboxCache.plist It seems to keep a list of the mboxes in that folder/account. In Snow Leopard, the first time you manually move an mbox out of alphabetical order, a new key called MailboxDisplayOrder seems to get created in that plist for all the existing "non-special" (i.e. not INBOX, Sent, Drafts, etc.) mboxes in that folder. Once that key exists, it seems like new folders get appended to the end of the order.
    I don't know the right way to fix the problem though. I'm really just posting my observations, based on what I'm seeing on my computer. I'd be very careful about manually messing with invisible files in your mail, especially if you don't have a good backup. (No idea if you can restore an invisible file with Time Machine.) A lot of this is guesswork. But I thought maybe it'd help someone.
    Later,
    k

  • Group by sql statement is not sorted.

    execut sql statement include group by clause in a oci program, the result is not sorted.
    I don't know why..
    in SqlPlus, same sql statement return sorted data.
    SELECT A.SHOP_ID,A.RESALE_TYPE,
    SUM(A.DEAL_AMT,0) DEAL_AMT
    FROM SHOP_ACC A, CD_TAB C
    WHERE A.RESALE_TYPE = C.CD(+)
    AND C.GB = 'AB'
    AND A.ACC_M = :s_AccMonth
    AND DEAL_GB='FOD'
    GROUP BY A.SHOP_ID,A.RESALE_TYPE
    But, RESALE_TYPE is outer join on CD_TAB..
    if remove outer join between CD_TAB and SHOP_ACC,
    sql statement is return sorted result.
    and if modify the column RESALE_TYPE like
    RESALE_TYPE||']' or NVL(RESALE_TYPE,'AAA')
    return sorted result..
    please help..
    thanks for your kind.

    thank you.. for reply..
    I knew that order by clause make to sort.
    but, using group by clause alone in SQL statement, that return sorted results too.
    I was found a fault that outer join table CD_TAB column of one is not symbloc "(+)" in SQL statement
    SELECT A.SHOP_ID,A.RESALE_TYPE,
    SUM(A.DEAL_AMT,0) DEAL_AMT
    FROM SHOP_ACC A, CD_TAB C
    WHERE A.RESALE_TYPE = C.CD(+)
    AND C.GB = 'AB' <----------- AND C.GB(+) = 'AB'
    AND A.ACC_M = :s_AccMonth
    AND DEAL_GB='FOD'
    GROUP BY A.SHOP_ID,A.RESALE_TYPE
    I want to know that why in other application - such as SqlPlus or SqlGate and ..etc. - this fault was ignore.. but OCI application such as my application programs is not ignore.. and is not sorted..
    thank you..

  • SQL Server Service is not reflecting to the new name.

    Hi,
    I just rename the computer and use the command below to rename the SQL Server but the SQL Server Service is not reflecting to the new name.
    Is there a way to change the SQL Server Service and agent to reflect the new name or do I have to re-install sql server.
    I am using SQL 2008 R2.
    Thank you in advance.

    If running "SELECT
    @@servername" yields the old server name, it means the instance has not been renamed.
    you must run statement to drop the old name of the instance and recreate it with the new name as the default (local) one..
    EXEC master.dbo.sp_dropserver 'MACHINENAME\OLDINSTANCENAME'
    go
    EXEC master.dbo.sp_addserver 'MACHINENAME\newINSTANCENAME', 'local'
    go
    I took the code here: 
    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sqlserver/en-US/c07ab906-dabf-4303-9737-d430d82c4f42/how-to-rename-instance-of-sql-server-2008-r2?forum=sqltools
    Once you did this, look at your maintenance plans.  I sometime end up having one or two still following the old name.  Especially if you create this new server from a copy of another virtualized one.

  • 4.0 EA3 - SQL History TIMESTAMP format

    Timestamp in SQL history is incorrectly showing the dates. Seems like a mismatch between the Timestamp format; looks like in some case the is showing the dar as month and month as day; have some other scenarios where also the year is wrong.
    This issue was also reported here: https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2593880

    Hi Gary,
    Is possible that it may be a "Locale" related issue, but I don't know where is the Locale value comming from, since my Windows and SQLDeveloper are in English. See screenshot... http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5097/6jbq.jpg
    Nevertheless, is true that I'm located in Spain, and in previous versions of  SQL Developer, the IDE was in Spanish by default, and I had to edit the sqldeveloper.conf file, adding the following option (I like my tools in English)
    AddVMOption -Duser.language=en
    SQL Developer 4 is correctly showing in English without editing the file.
    Regards

  • Classic report ORA-00933 SQL command not properly ended when enabling sort

    Hi,
    Oracle 11g r2, APEX 4.1.1.00.23.
    I have some reports of type SQL Query (PL/SQL function body returning SQL query), so the source is like the following :
    begin
      return points_ui.get_points_query(:P0_FILTER_TYPE);
    end;Without any sort option, the report is rendering successfully.
    But I got the following error when a try to enable the sort option for a column :
    ORA-00933: SQL command not properly endedI read about this error on Oracle forums, and I saw it was a bug in a previous release, but I thought it was fixed in 4.0.2...
    Any help would be much appreciated.
    Thanks.
    Yann.

    OK indeed I had to remove the order by clause from the query, I should have tested this...
    I thought there were some checks in the internal APEX process to "merge" the order by clauses, but it seems it is not the case...
    Thank you for your help.
    Yann.

Maybe you are looking for