By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,493 Members | 1,176 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,493 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

SortBy Fields.

P: n/a
I have seen that technique used occasionally, where people include an extra
sortby field in tables so as to create a different ordering scheme than that
derived by simply sorting the values of the original fields in the table.
i.e.,

E.g.

Field1 SortBy
Good 001
Bad 002
Ugly 003

Is this technique a) widely used and b) advisable?
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
It's a pretty standard technique, and I'm not aware of any significant
problems with it.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

"Kostas" <no*****@noemail.net> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
I have seen that technique used occasionally, where people include an extra sortby field in tables so as to create a different ordering scheme than that derived by simply sorting the values of the original fields in the table.
i.e.,

E.g.

Field1 SortBy
Good 001
Bad 002
Ugly 003

Is this technique a) widely used and b) advisable?

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
Thanks Doug,

Kostas

"Douglas J. Steele" <NOSPAM_djsteele@NOSPAM_canada.com> wrote in message
news:wO********************@rogers.com...
It's a pretty standard technique, and I'm not aware of any significant
problems with it.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

Nov 13 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.