Stratify Sort Issues

We are trying to use Endeca.Stratify in Ns Parameter using an EQL expresson.
Ns=Endeca.stratify(collection()/record[p9999] or record[p595])|1
Where p9999 and p595 are Properties for each product which holds the Price. EQL expression is getting evaluated correctly, but the results are not sorted in Descending order.
both properties are enabled for record Filters and Sort.
Result set is showing the records which has p9999 or p595 but they are not sorted in descending order as mentioned in the Ns parameter
Any help appreciated on this.
Thanks

Correction in the Syntax that is being used
Ns=Endeca.stratify(collection()/record[p9999 or p595])|1

Similar Messages

Sorting issue after upgrade from 9i to 10g

Dear all,
It is found that the sorting behavior is different after upgrade from 9i to 10g.
In 9i, even if the SQL statement does not specify the ORDER BY clause, the sorting order is consistent for a particular SQL statement and most likely the sequence follows the searched key fields' order.
After upgrade to 10g, the query output could vary as long as the SQL statement does not specify the ORDER BY clause.
Is it due to the Reverse Docid Sorting issue? How can I troubleshoot this issue?
Thanks for your help,
M.T.

903714 wrote:
Dear all,
It is found that the sorting behavior is different after upgrade from 9i to 10g.
In 9i, even if the SQL statement does not specify the ORDER BY clause, the sorting order is consistent for a particular SQL statement and most likely the sequence follows the searched key fields' order.
After upgrade to 10g, the query output could vary as long as the SQL statement does not specify the ORDER BY clause.
Is it due to the Reverse Docid Sorting issue? How can I troubleshoot this issue?
Thanks for your help,
M.T. This is expected behavior in 10g. Oracle will not order the dataset for you unless and until you explicitly specify it.
So without using order by clause in 10g, oracle doesn't guarantee that rows will be ordered.
To go back to old behavior like 9i, you can set a workaround by
alter session set "_newsort_enabled"=false;
Also see MOS - Order Of Data Retrieval Differs after upgrading 9i To 10g [ID 456707.1]

Query as a web service Sorting issue

Hi All,
We have designed an existing BI query as a web service but it seems to be ignoring the Sort order of different characteristics used (as defined in Bex Query Designer).
Using the Context menu in QAAS and defining/managing the Sort is not working.
Has anyone experienced such an issue and how to handle this?
Thanks and Regards,
Bansi

Hi All,
You can try this solution. It has something to do with the universe parameter, END_SQL.
I implemented this as a work around and it solved our problem about the sorting issue with QAAWS.
Here are the steps:
1: Open the universe
2. Ope File, then Universe Parameter
3. Click the parameter tab
4. Scroll down until you see the 'END_SQL' entry. This entry is blank by default.
5. Select END_SQL
6. On the VALUE box, type: ORDER BY 1
7. This will enable the REPLACE button. Click REPLACE
8. Save the universe
9 Test a query using 2 columns and view the SQL.
You should see now the ORDER BY 1 inferred in the SQL statement.
Voila!!!!
Of course you can always add ORDER By 1,2,3 later if there's a need.
Enjoy.....
Ferdinand

Finder sort issue

I seem to be having a sorting issue.
This order seems odd to me, but like to get your opinions about it.
(This folder is sorted alphabetically by file name.)
2008 01.doc
2008 02.doc
Activiteit_oktober.doc
af 200802 - groen reserve.rtf
af 200802 - groen.rtf
af 20071130 - groen-geel.doc
af 20080126 - groen.rtf
af 20080216 avond - leiding WE.pages
af 20080704 avond - groen & oranje.pages
af 20080709 avond - bezinning.rtf
idee spel.rtf
In my logic the file 'af 20071130 - groen-geel.doc' should be before the two files beginning with 'af 200802' and not after. Or is this just me?

In my logic the file 'af 20071130 - groen-geel.doc' should be before the two files beginning with 'af 200802' and not after. Or is this just me?
OS X Finder sorts strings of digits according to their value, not digit by digit. 200802 is less than 20071130. Here is a note on the issue:
http://homepage.mac.com/thgewecke/sorting.html

Front Row sorting issues

Hello,
I know this issue has been posted several times and without any real solutions. But I'm going to ask again anyway in case the magical hacking gnomes have found a work-around.
I have many sorting issues. There seems to be a lot of kvetching on here already about how Front Row sorts TV shows. But not only do my shows come up backwards within seasons, in some cases seasons themselves are out of order. For example, I have all 3 seasons of 30 Rock (purchased through iTMS) and they go season 1, season 3, season 2. Several other shows with multiple seasons are the same.
But I also have a music sorting issue. The first part of this issue has to do with compilations. I've got several compilations in my library, and in iTunes I've sorted them by Various Artists rather than individual artists. In Front Row, if I scroll down to "V," there is no "Various Artists" like you might expect but instead a list of all the artists in all the compilations completely out of order. (Actually, they're ordered by their track number on the different albums. Yeah. That makes sense.) I could deal with these artists showing up in their normal places alphabetically, but not all lumped together under V.
The other issue has to do with albums with one artist who has some tracks that feature other artists. Kanye West's "Graduation" is a good example. About half the tracks on the album are him "featuring Jamie Foxx," for example. So I put "Kanye West" in the sort field of this album so it displays properly in iTunes. Not only does this seem to have no effect on how things are sorted in Front Row, but there's actually multiple "Kanye West"s now, each one identical, as well as multiple "Kanye West feat. Jamie Foxx," lines and all the other multiple artist track. Uh...what?
So I know that Front Row for some ridiculous reason is (a) not customizable and (b) operates under completely different sorting rules than iTunes (which makes no sense), but if anyone has any advice or tips or comments or whatever, that would be greatly appreciated.
I've considered switching to a different media management program, but what I like about Front Row is its simplicity. I don't really feel like learning a whole new system (let alone getting my wife to buy into that idea). I've got better ways to spend my time. So, it's a trade off, I guess.
Anyway, Apple Gods? Are you out there? Are you listening?

I can't believe we're still banging on about the sorting problems. Apple have seen fit to provide a number of features to allow the user to get iTunes working the way they like, e.g. grouping compilation artists and the use of sort fields. I think you can now even keep compilation artists grouped on the iPod. But why oh why do they then totally ignore this for the AppleTV and Front Row (which look like the same codebase to me)?
I have hundreds of genuine Artists that I want to see listed in the Artists' list, but not the thousands of others that appear on compilations. They don't even sort the artists by the Artist Sort field that they themselves provide in iTunes. This makes a nonsense of trying to use either the ATV or Front Row.
Playlists are no help as they simply lump all contained tracks in one great list. Useless.
The annoying thing is, they can get it right. iTunes just gets better and better in this regard, each release sorting out more of the omissions of earlier versions. But ATV and Front Row - nope, nothing. Still just as stupid as always. Just what will it take to convince Apple to 'sort' (ha) this out? How can they justify such entirely different ways of working on their different products?

Cover flow and album sort issues

I just got a 80GB iPod classic for Christmas and I have noticed some annoying differences between iTunes cover flow and iPod cover flow:
1. In iTunes cover flow, when you have songs with "Unknown Album", they clutter up the cover flow for each artist. In iPod cover flow, they are sent to the back of the cover flow in a nice little "Various Artists" cover. I like how this works on the iPod better.
2. iTunes cover flow sorts by album artist, so you don't see a separate album for each non-album artist song.
For example: If I set my album artist for the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack to "Saturday Night Fever" (don't ask why, this is how i like it sorted) then I will only see one "Saturday Night Fever" rather than one for Bee Gees, one for Kool & the Gang, etc.
iPod cover flow sorts by artist, so you see a separate album for each non-album artist song. I like the way this works in iTunes better.
3. When sorting by "Album by Year" in iTunes, syncing the iPod doesn't seem to follow the same sorting. Albums are still sorted on the iPod alphabetically. I want them to sort by year on my iPod.
So I would appreciate it if someone could help me with all 3 of these issues. As you can see, sometimes iTunes is better for me, sometimes iPod is better for me.

3. Playlists should be sorted in the same way as they are in iTunes. The Cover Flow order is fixed.
This is not the case, at least not with iTunes 7.5.0.20 and my 80GB Classic running 1.0.3 on it (current version as of this writing). In iTunes, under LIBRARY, I select Music, and I have my music sorted via *Album by Year*. This works perfectly in iTunes. I'll use my Soundgarden library as an example, as it shows the problem nicely.
*_iTunes order_:*
Ultramega OK
Louder Than Love
Screaming Life/Fopp
Badmotorfinger
Superunknown
Songs From The Superunknown
Down on the Upside
A-Sides
That's ordered by date and is perfect. +Ultramega OK+ was released way back in 1988, while A-Sides was released nearly 10 years later in 1997. In Cover Flow View it works great. However, in the iPod it's sorted alphabetically, which is completely wrong:
*_iPod Classic_:*
A-Sides
Badmotorfinger
Down on the Upside
Louder Than Love
Screaming Life/Fopp
Songs From The Superunknown
Superunknown
Ultramega OK
This is totally wrong. And I haven't yet found a way to force it.
Apple, please, this shouldn't be that difficult.

Payment Advice Sort Issue

Hi All,
We are having an issue with the way the payment advices are sorted for our canadian company when running DME. We set a sort variant based on Payee name on REGUH which is ZNME1, but that field has <b>Firstname Lastname</b> so all the sort is done based on first name. We want to do it based on last name but there no field on REGUH which will help us.
Kindly advice.
Regards,
S

Hi Javed
Please let me know if you have implemented any solution to this. We are facing the same issue.
Regards
Rajesh

Index (HHK) sorting issue in Japanese (RoboHelp X3)

I'm a Japanese localizing engineer who now tries to generate
a WebHelp with a nicely sorted index in Japanese.
As I assume that this has been a known issue for double-byte
languages for a long time, a Japanese index cannot be sorted
perfectly in a compiled chm or WebHelp. In Japanese, there are
several types of Japanese characters (Kanji, Katakana, Hiragana).
Regardless of what type of character a string is typed in, Japanese
strings should be sorted according to <i>yomi-gana</i>,
the way each Japanese string pronounces but currently an index gets
sorted according to the following order (in ASCII code):
*number
*alphabet
*hiragana
*katanaka
*kanji... and so on.
So here I'm trying to do the followings:
1. In a HHK file, I put <so>...</so> in front of
every entry where I spell out the pronounciation in each <so>
segment.
2. Open the HHK with HTML Workshop, sort the file, and save
it (I'll get the file sorted according to what I have put in
<so>..</so>.
3. Open it with a Text Editor and remove all the
<so>..</so> entrires.
4. Put the HHK file in a build folder and generate a
chm/WebHelp in RoboHelp X3.
In the 4th step, I don't want RoboHelp to re-sort the HHK but
it does it automatically. If I can disable the index sorting
functionality in RoboHelp X3 (the latest version in Japanese) but
looks like there is no way to do it. If anyone is sure that it's
not possible to disable the auto-sorting functionality in RoboHelp,
please let me know so that I can give up witout a sweat.
By the way, I have tried the alternative for WebHelp that
skips the 3rd step and removes all the <so>...</so> in
the files that RoboHelp creates. The result is that everything got
messed up and some of the contents in the Index couldn't be viewed
in a browser.
Thanks.
Rota.

Hi Paul
Have you tried just right-clicking in the index and choosing sort?
Click the image below to view larger.
Note that this may require you to temporarily configure Microsoft HTML Help as the primary layout and editing the Project Settings in order to allow the sort function to appear.
Remember, you press Ctrl+Shift+? to open Project Settings. You then would turn off (or ensure it's turned off) the Binary Index feature.
Once you have done this, you would then revert any settings that you changed to allow things to work.
Cheers... Rick
Helpful and Handy Links
RoboHelp Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
Begin learning RoboHelp HTML 7 or 8 within the day - $24.95!
Adobe Certified RoboHelp HTML Training
SorcerStone Blog
RoboHelp eBooks

Possible resolution to sorting issue in iTunes 9 and 3.1

For those experiencing issues sorting Podcasts chronologically:
One particular daily podcast I subscribe to was not sorting correctly (was in random order on the iPod Touch 32gb 2nd Gen).
I did notice the "Release Date" wasn't carrying over to the iPod during the syncing process.
(If you try this, copy any podcasts you can't afford to lose to a separate directory)
1) I unsubscribed from the podcast in iTunes 9
2) deleted all the episodes from iTunes
3) Synced iTunes / iPod - (basically removing remnants of the podcast)
4) Went back to the iTunes store and subscribed again to said podcast
5) "Get" the episodes I wanted
6) Synced iTunes and iTouch
Thankfully, this corrected the issue of random sort order on my iPod - now the "Release Date" is again noted / visible when looking in the iPod and it is ordered correctly.
Hope this provides some relief to some.

I had this happen with my 3GS almost a month ago. No amount of trying to restore would work and the Apple Genius claimed he had never seen anything like it.
My iPhone was bricked with the error 23. I plugged it into XCode and it failed to restore saying there was a radio failure. There was no 3G, no WiFi no edge and no bluetooth. They were all grayed out in settings. Apple replaced my phone with no problem. This is what you will end up having to do as well.
You will be able to restore from your previous backup.

Mobile Me gallery sorting issue

I recently upgraded iLife from '08 to '09. I am having an issue when I publish and event to my Mobile Me Gallery where its not sorting the photos correctly in the gallery. They don't seem to sorted the same way as I have them in the event when I publish them to the mobile me gallery, its not doing it every time just sometimes. I know I can go into the published gallery within iPhoto and go to view > sort and change it in there but it seems strange that I would have to do that. Why wouldn't it publish the same way as I have them sorted in the event. It also seems that sometimes when I do resort them in the gallery that it doesn't stay. Also is there a way to set the default setting to sort a certain way? Thanks.
Message was edited by: johncocci

I am having similar problems, also in reordering multiple galleries in iPhoto.
try leaving feedback for Apple at http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphoto.html to make them aware of the issues. Maybe they will fix this in a future update. it did work in iPhoto '08 after all.

XQuery sorting issue

Hi,
Right now I am in a big trouble. I am new in XQuery, but right now I'm in a project using Xquery using PHP and XSLT..
In our project we have large no. data (its a property listing site) and I'm storing that data to Berkeley DB (XML DB). The problem is when I am searching for a property its taking too much time for getting the result. The ORDER BY is creating the problem(Query 1).. with out sorting its working fine(Query 2). But for my project sorting is needed and its very impotent. So kindly please check my query(Query1) and please give me a solution as soon as possible. Following are the query:
Query1:
let $properties := (
for $property in collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
[( sale_price >=60000 and sale_price <=500000 ) and ( building_square_footage >=300 and building_square_footage <=3000 ) and ( bedrooms >=2 and bedrooms <=6 )]
order by
contains($property/mls_agent_id/text(), '505199') descending,
matches($property/mls_office_id/text(), '^CBRR') ascending,
$property/sale_price/number() descending
return $property
let $properties := subsequence($properties,10,10) return <properties>{$properties}</properties>
Query 2:
let $properties := (
for $property in subsequence (
collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
[( sale_price >=60000 and sale_price <=500000 ) and ( building_square_footage >=300 and building_square_footage <=3000 ) and ( bedrooms >=2 and bedrooms <=6 )]
, 1, 10)
descending return $property
) return <properties>{$properties}</properties>
Thank you,
Vijesh
Edited by: 893736 on Oct 28, 2011 10:28 AM
Edited by: 893736 on Oct 28, 2011 10:33 AM

Hi,
Thank you for your reply.. right now there is a slight improvement in Query. But still i'm stucked with issue... also this project is also stucked...
Now the problem is when I am searching for a property it will list the first 10 property quickly(100% speed). Then I'm going to 2dn, 3rd page its working in the same speed. But if I'm going to 10th(30% speed) or 100th or 1500th(15%speed) page is working very slowly.
Following are my query:
let $property_ids:=
for $property in collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
order by $property/sale_price/number() descending
return $property/@property_id,
for $property in collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
order by $property/sale_price/number() descending
return $property/@property_id,
for $property in collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
order by $property/sale_price/number() descending
return $property/@property_id
return <properties>{
for $id in subsequence($property_ids, 1, 10) return
collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property@property_id = $id
}</properties>
And some times query will change like the following way based on the filter option in my page(means sort by only sale_price field):
let $property_ids:=
for $property in collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property
order by $property/sale_price/number() descending
return $property/@property_id
return <properties>{
for $id in subsequence($property_ids, 1, 10) return
collection('bdb/properties.dbxml')/properties/property@property_id = $id
}</properties>
then from the first page its self its performance is very slow(15%).
Could you please check my query and help me to solve the issue...
Thank you,
Vijesh

Artist for sorting issues

Hi,
I have more and more Asian artists on my iTunes player and for the accuracy of last fm scrobbling I'm using the Asian alphabets, but as I can't read (and memorize) Asian alphabets I use the romanized equivalents in the "for sorting" ("pour le tri" in French) fields, BUT we can't enter an artist name for sorting for several tracks at the same time like we can for the artist and title fields, that's a big issue, so for now I use the "artist of the album" instead of "artist for sorting", do Apple plan to fix the limited use of the "for sorting" feature?
Best.

There is a way of entering sort fields on multiple tracks.
First enter and save the information in one track and save it.
The select the track and right click, you will discover an apply sort field option which gives several ways of adding the sort field to other tracks.
Message was edited by: polydorus

Cover Flow Sorting Issue - Workaround

Here is a temporary solution to the Cover Flow view & the Album Art Grouping view.
As many of you know the sorting by 'Album' or 'Album by Artist' or 'Album by Year' in the above mentioned views is not correctly prioritized.
The issue stems from the fact that the sort algorithm prioritized 'Artist' over the expected logic implied by grouping by the sort field name. So if a single album contains tracks all by different artists, you will get a Album Cover for each artist NOT each album.
To get around this (until Apple fixes it) use the 'Album Artist' field (which is usually, but not always, empty) and set this field to a common value for an entire album — such as 'Various Artists.' When doing so, the logic will still sort on the Artist Name first, but will group the entire album together.
If Sorting by "Album by Year" then the only hitch to this method is if you have two or more albums with the same & progressive title (see example below.) Then the album will sort in order of the Artist name of the 1st track of the album. — This probably will affect nearly zero of the the iTunes population though.
e.g. The album sort order will be:
Album: "Music 02" 1st track Artist: "Astro"
Album: "Music 03" 1st track Artist: "Terra"
Album: "Music 01" 1st track Artist: "Viggio"
Once again just set each album with a common "Album Artist" descriptor. I use "Various Artists"
-Alan
Note: Also there is a new field in the info tags for each song called 'Album Artist.'
AlBook, TiBook, iMac, iBook Mac OS X (10.4.5) Corporate / mixed environment / multiple networks.

Hi,
just change the switch Compilation to true for all songs in the album and it works too.

6th Gen sorting issues

iPod software: 2.0.1
iTunes software:.10.5.1.42
Windows 7 Pro 64 bit SP 1
I'm a strong supporter of proper sorting. So much so that I add the year of release to the Sorting > Sort Album field to bypass the alphabetical sorting iTunes seems to prefer.
This is a minor issues in the grand scheme, but if someone can identify what I'm doing wrong, that would be awesome.
In the early part of Prince's career, he released music as Prince (1981, 1982, 1987) and also as Prince and The Revolution (1984, 1985). Looking above to how I sort by year of release, I would prefer that these five albums sort chronologically, but with the correct artist names. On the iPod as of now, they sort as Prince (three albums), Prince and The Revolution (two albums), and Prince (three albums) again. Same three albums, same 34 songs, same art, same everything. I can make them sort correctly in iTunes, but not on the iPod.
Thanks for any advice you might have!
Screenshot of iTunes, then a (blurry) pic of the iPod:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e7e028161665617
http://www.imagebam.com/image/d50356161665991

I haD the same issue, and was thoroughly ticked off until doing some research and then trying couple things.
I was able to change the volume limit, that WAS set at half. I adjusted it to max volume, set a lock passcode, and away I drove.
Then, upon hitting "play", I began to get a little ticked off. I realized after a few minutes, I couldn't hear anything playing.
It was so quiet- and I-95 is noisy, with me regretting buying another Apple product, after is wrote not to.
So- after reading through a couple of these threads, I just adjusted the volume limit, and VOILA!
It reverted to 50%.
So, I did a total wipe, factory-reset it as new iPod. I checked setting=>volume limit and it was at the 50% point again. First thing that I did was go to the last selection under settings menu, "reset settings" and noted it doesn't delete sync days, solely sys settings.
I adjusted the volume limit to 100% immediately afterwards, set a new passcode and then.....
Hit play.
It worked. Plays just as loud as my original 3rd Gen iTouch.
So Dylan1219, maybe try that? It's so simple, I am shocked that's how I fixed it. It had been set- and always snapped back to the 50% mark.
So, MAYBE that could solve the problem..? I have hearing loss from rock & roll and concerts, etc...so, thankfully this isn't a bunk product. Just had a bunk setting.
It has stayed at Max level for hours now, and can state it solved it for me.
I would hypothesize, all iPod classics are made the same, except for the "options" of storage and color. Maybe a small "governor" or a piece of extra firmware is added after the fact, or only "every 9th iPod" who knows for sure...?

Multiple Sorts Issue

I have two fields in a WEBI report (XIR2) that I want to sort.
1st a date field decending
2nd a string field ascending.
I apply the sort to each field, then double check the priority to make sure it does date first. The issue is that the string field always sorts descending no matter what setting I have the sort on for that field. If I only sort on the string field ascending, its works fine, but having to do the date first screws it up.
Any ideas?

Brian,
Double check your sort order. You can do this by checking the table properties.
Select the table (not the cell) and open the propery tab. You will see the last item is sort and when you click on the button you will get a place set the sort order.
thanks,
Anil

Stratify Sort Issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for