How to sort on timestamp?

[rlinsurf]

Question says it.

[LaRetta]

HI rlinsurf,

If the field is a regular timestamp, you simply sort it. I'm afraid we really don't have enough information here. Do you mean you might have a date field and a time field? If so, you can sort first by date (ascending) and then by time (ascending). But I've the feeling there is more here than this simple answer. :wink2:

[Lee Smith]

Question says it.

No it doesn't.

Is this a Timestamp Field?

I suspect that this is tied to your other post that was about parsing out data from a web source, and that the field is Text.

HTH

Lee

[rlinsurf]

It is a standard Timestamp field. I am using a CF to generate what the manual said was the proper form, and then used a script to set the timestamp field to the generated data in each record. Here are some examples:

1/5/2009 4:45:34 PM

10/4/2009 9:58 PM

3/22/2009 11:08:40 PM

When sorted solely by the timestamp field, they sort 1/1/2009 first, coming before many 2008 dates.

[Lee Smith]

The field is a timestamp, and the result of the CF is also a timestamp?

Lee

[Sara Severson]

It sounds an awful lot like FM is interpreting the field as Text. Double-check that the field is defined as type = Timestamp?

[rlinsurf]

Hi, Lee--

No, the CF is to parse out the entire web page. Once the CF does its work, it's then copied and pasted into a permanent storage field which is a standard timestamp field. The original text of the html is then deleted to save on space. The difference between the file containing the original html and the file without is the difference between 2.5GB and 35MB. Hence the need to get rid of the original HTML. So the timestamp is then only permanently stored in the non-CF timestamp field.

[rlinsurf]

It sounds an awful lot like FM is interpreting the field as Text. Double-check that the field is defined as type = Timestamp?

Um -- Can you say "Dumb**s?"

Why, yes. That *could* be the problem. : : :B

Edited October 20, 2009 by Guest

[Lee Smith]

That is why I was asking you if the field was a Timestamp field, twice.

In fact, that was a point made by LaRetta too.

Lee

Edited October 20, 2009 by Guest

[rlinsurf]

Yes, I know. It was about 7AM when I went to check it and that's about when I dropped off. I actually swore I had checked it. Sara's post made me go back and check again.

Apologies. :

Edited October 20, 2009 by Guest

[Lee Smith]

No Problem.

This is a very common error, and we all have had it happen to us.

It is one of the first things to check when the results are not acting like expected, display funny, relationships are not working, etc.

HTH

Lee

[rlinsurf]

Thanks, Lee :

[mvincenti]

I have a related question- since this thread is so recent, I thought I'd just continue it...

I have a timestamp field that I'm trying to sort and generally, it sorts perfectly and as expected. I should mention that Filemaker will automatically enter the creation date into this timestamp field. However, I just created a new record and needed to change that date. The sort does not recognize the changed date. Am I expecting Filemaker to act inappropriately? It seems that it honors the actual creation of the record rather than the text within the timestamp field. I can certainly see how this would be useful but how can I add records retroactively via this timestamp field, then?

Is my question clear?

Thank in advance.

[comment]

However, I just created a new record and needed to change that date. The sort does not recognize the changed date. Am I expecting Filemaker to act inappropriately?

No, it should work as you expect.