GNU bug report logs - #9334
sort bug

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#9334: closed (sort bug)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 01:59:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:55:57 -0600
with message-id <20110822015557.GB7161 <at> hysteria.proulx.com>
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
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
9334: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9334
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: "ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN" <dvl <at> psu.edu>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: sort bug
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:54:45 -0400

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

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

[Message part 4 (text/html, inline)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
To: ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN <dvl <at> psu.edu>
Cc: 9334-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9334: sort bug
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:55:57 -0600

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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.