Sort/select processing when sorting by associated fields

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:34:16PM -0500, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> >What I was trying to get at was why that decision was taken in the
> >first place.  We're assuming, here, a selection *set* (which supersedes
> >processing, right? -v only runs against the records that survive -s?)
> >that includes an associated field.  Or perhaps I've had too much to
> >drink.  Already.  :-)
> 
> Yes, the sort/select processing only gets records that make it through
> any selection set.
> 
> Also, remember that, if the record has all instances of the associated
> field blank, and blank does not pass the selection set, the record won't
> be selected.

So this behavior only pertains to sort/sel processing on an associated
field which does *not* also occur in a selection set used at the same
time...

which probably either *is* or *ought to be* fairly uncommon.  :-)

When's Orlando again, BTW?
-- j
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274

	     Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
	     Those who count the vote decide everything.
	       -- (Joseph Stalin)