[debbugs-tracker] bug#9334: closed (sort bug)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:55:57 -0600
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#9334: sort bug
has caused the GNU bug report #9334,
regarding sort bug
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
9334: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9334
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> sort bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:54:45 -0400
>
>
>
>
> First: some version
> information:
> sort (GNU coreutils) 8.4
>
> I run a series of pipes, and
> after piping into 'sort -n', I see this: 
>     1  
> 12
>     1    4
>    
> 5   16
>     9   20
>
> The first column
> sorted correctly, numerically, but the second did not.
> I do not have
> sufficient data to determine whether the second column
> is sorted
> lexicographically, or simply ignored.
>
> Roger Christman
> Computer
> Science and Engineering
> Pennsylvania State
> Univeristy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#9334: sort bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:55:57 -0600
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
>
>
>
>
> tags 9334 + notabug
> thanks
>
> ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN wrote:
> > First: some version information:
> > sort (GNU coreutils) 8.4
>
> Thanks!
>
> > I run a series of pipes, and after piping into 'sort -n', I see this: 
> >     1   12
> >     1    4
> >     5   16
> >     9   20
> > 
> > The first column sorted correctly, numerically, but the second did not.
> > I do not have sufficient data to determine whether the second column
> > is sorted lexicographically, or simply ignored.
>
> Thanks for the report but you are not seeing a bug in sort but in the
> use of it.  You have insufficiently qualified the sort criteria.  Try
> this:
>
>   sort -n -k1,1 -k2,2
>
> Or my preference:
>
>   sort -k1,1n -k2,2n
>
> The reasoning is as found in the sort documentation:
>
>      A pair of lines is compared as follows: `sort' compares each pair of
>   fields, in the order specified on the command line, according to the
>   associated ordering options, until a difference is found or no fields
>   are left.  If no key fields are specified, `sort' uses a default key of
>   the entire line.  Finally, as a last resort when all keys compare
>   equal, `sort' compares entire lines as if no ordering options other
>   than `--reverse' (`-r') were specified.  The `--stable' (`-s') option
>   disables this "last-resort comparison" so that lines in which all
>   fields compare equal are left in their original relative order.  The
>   `--unique' (`-u') option also disables the last-resort comparison.
>   ...
>   `-n'
>   `--numeric-sort'
>   `--sort=numeric'
>        Sort numerically.  The number begins each line and consists of
>        optional blanks, an optional `-' sign, and zero or more digits
>        possibly separated by thousands separators, optionally followed by
>        a decimal-point character and zero or more digits.  An empty
>        number is treated as `0'.  ...
>
> Since no fields are specified sort is using a default key of the
> entire line.  Since you care about sorting on fields you should
> include sort field options.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --- End Message ---