2015

On =10/02/2015, at 16.45, Stephen Reiss <wineguy@mac.com> wrote:

You could always =add an index number to the records. That would make it simple to sort in =either direction.

On Feb 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Palle Bo Nielsen =<powerpalle@powerpalle.dk> wrote:

Hi =Tom

That did =the trick, thanks.

Wouldn=E2=80=99t it be logical if the reverse approach were =achievable also in stead of doing a TABLE and then REVERSE the =output?

I =often work with databases with more than one million rows and multiple =fields associated and it would be a hassle to do that kind of work =around and a waste of memory.

Christophe, are you aware of an easier =solution or could the Reverse Sorting order be a candidate for the next =WebDNA release. I find this very attractive=E2=80=A6 Any opinion from =any other on the List?

/Palle

On 10/02/2015, at 15.52, Tom =Duke <tom@revolutionaries.ie> wrote:

Palle,

Hi =- my recollection is that you don't specify a sort order but do add ="&rank=3Doff" to the search string.  Then the data should =display as written in the db.

You would probably have to generate a =table in reverse order and search that to get the reversed =order.

- =Tom



---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us

---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us