Re: Summarizing on two fields

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1998


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 18361
interpreted = N
texte = Hi Gil. Thanks for trying to help. I think I tried the 'de' sort, but I am not sure and will not be until I get back from my vacation in two weeks time.I agree with you completely on the opinion on filed naming in databases. The search snippet in my previous mail was just an example, so I do not have the field named like this in my db. As a Norwegian, I use Norwegian names for the fields.And you do not only confuse yourself. I have experienced the result of naming a field url. The result when I referred it in my code was not nice.Per Christian Lied>Christian, I think you just need to add de to the beginning of the field >names you are sorting, as in &decompanysort=1&dedatesort=2. This will force >a sort from newest back to oldest, instead of the default sort order. Also, >you will probably need to identify the date field as type date, as in >&datetype=date in order for the date sort to function properly. > >Finally, I am one of those who is of the opinion that you should not have a >field in your database called simply date; call it wdate or saledate or >something other than date so that you don't confuse the heck out of yourself >when you also use [date] to set the current date in the database. > Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Summarizing on two fields (Per Christian Lied 1998)
  2. Re: Summarizing on two fields (Per Christian Lied 1998)
  3. Re: Summarizing on two fields (Gil Poulsen 1998)
Hi Gil. Thanks for trying to help. I think I tried the 'de' sort, but I am not sure and will not be until I get back from my vacation in two weeks time.I agree with you completely on the opinion on filed naming in databases. The search snippet in my previous mail was just an example, so I do not have the field named like this in my db. As a Norwegian, I use Norwegian names for the fields.And you do not only confuse yourself. I have experienced the result of naming a field url. The result when I referred it in my code was not nice.Per Christian Lied>Christian, I think you just need to add de to the beginning of the field >names you are sorting, as in &decompanysort=1&dedatesort=2. This will force >a sort from newest back to oldest, instead of the default sort order. Also, >you will probably need to identify the date field as type date, as in >&datetype=date in order for the date sort to function properly. > >Finally, I am one of those who is of the opinion that you should not have a >field in your database called simply date; call it wdate or saledate or >something other than date so that you don't confuse the heck out of yourself >when you also use [date] to set the current date in the database. > Per Christian Lied

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

File Info Cache Size is out of range? (1998) generating a space delimited file (2001) PHP Live (2005) Where is f2? (1997) FINAL: STILL not starting on bootup (2002) default image if image in code not available (2003) Close-to Comparison Code (1998) [date format] w/in sendmail (1997) really wierd browser truncating (1997) Round to the nearest half! (2008) writefile on OSX (2004) WebDNA Solutions ... (1997) b12 cannot limit records returned and more. (1997) Webcat run amuk (2002) in conversions.db crashes unix webcat (1999) Tracking E-mail click thrus (2001) [WebDNA] WebDNA Roll Call (2013) All choices on IE different than Netscape (1997) Modulo function? (2000) [WebDNA] Just drop the Server version (2015)