Record sorting issue

[Clint Mitchell]

Hi guys,

I have a form which consists of many records which are numbered consecutively. Of these consecutively numbered records I have them grouped into certain batches. For example:

Batch 1
Record 1
Record 2
Record 3

Batch 2
Record 4
Record 5
Record 6

Etc…

I need my records to be listed consecutively by record number and have thus set the first sort field to record “number”. Then I have the records grouped by “Batch”.

However, I have an issue when I name a batch something like V-series. This causes those record numbers in that “V-Series” batch to be taken out of the consecutive numbering sequence and grouped together at the bottom of the form even though they are sorted by number.

It seems to me that the names of the various groups or batches are displayed in the forms record list in alphabetical order no matter what the first sort field is. Is that correct or is that an error?

Basically, I need all of the records to be listed consecutively by the first numerical sort field regardless of what its batch (group) is named…

It just seems a bit strange to me to be able to sort the records by a specific sort field for it then to be ignored if the various groups or batches are forced to be listed alphabetically thus breaking record number sequence…

From what I understand the “Group Records By” takes sorting priority over “First Sort Field”, essentially meaning it isn’t really the “First Sort Field”…

[Brendan]

Sorting occurs in this order:

Group Field
   First Sort Field
      Second Sort Field
         Third Sort Field

So your Group Field is used to determine the overall sorting of the batches. That’s done alphabetically and therefore it makes sense that V-Series occurs after Batch #, because V appears after B alphabetically.

Perhaps you need to rename your batches so they sort numerically or maybe use Batch V instead of V-Series.

Thanks,

Brendan

[Clint Mitchell]

Thanks Brendan, but naming the specific groups as “Batch V” would not make for a very accurate database in this instance because the numerical groupings are specifically named “V-Series”, etc and they do not follow the alphabetic chronology. Plus if I ever had to share the database with a peer then it would not look very professional. It just seems a little misleading to offer a “First” sort field when it isn’t really the first sort field. To come across this issue after inputting 3900+ records to then learn that I will have to rethink the sorting is a little annoying as I currently cannot see any benefit to undermining the database’s sorting function by forcing the groups to display alphabetically…

[Author]

Posts