Hi guys,

I have the following example data:

A;00:00:19
B;00:01:02
C;00:00:13
D;00:00:16
E;00:02:27
F;00:00:12
G;00:00:21
H;00:00:19
I;00:00:13
J;00:13:22

I run the following sort against it, yet the output is as follows:

sort -t";" +1 -nr example_data.dat

A;00:00:19
B;00:01:02
C;00:00:13
D;00:00:16
E;00:02:27
F;00:00:12
G;00:00:21
H;00:00:19
I;00:00:13
J;00:13:22

I'd expect it to recognise the field delimiter, skipping field 1 and then sorting numerically on the second field (i.e. to put the longest time first and the shortest last). Any ideas please? Is the ":" in this field causing an issue?

I've proven it is recognising the second field as the sort key by changing to a dictionary-based sort too:

sort -t"," +1 -dr example_data.dat

J,00:13:22
E,00:02:27
B,00:01:02
G,00:00:21
A,00:00:19
H,00:00:19
D,00:00:16
C,00:00:13
I,00:00:13
F,00:00:12

This produces the desired output against this subset of data, but when I run it against the 'live' data (of much larger volume) it isn't any use as it will start with all times beginning with '9' first and then in descending order, it has to be a numeric-based sort ultimately.

Thanks in advance,

Mark

Thanks for the uber-fast reply Krish. I looked at the key definition thing (k switch) but it didn't seem to to work either. Using what you gave does the right thing, only, when I transpose that command to use on my live data, it doesn't. Here's an example (first 10 lines out of the newly sorted file):

sort -t";" rk2,2 mwreport_joined.txt > mwreport_sorted.txt

GLMLRP_ComparisonJob;989:13:42
GLMLRP_Diff_HighlighterJob;989:08:56
AD046;988:44:15
GleamMIPostCanadaExtractJob;9196:53:12
GleamMIAGREERepAllBackOutJob;9025:39:12
GleamMIAGREEProdFacilCombJob;9025:29:36
GleamMIAGREEExcRateHistExtractJob;9025:21:26
GleamMIAGREEDynamicParamJob;9025:19:10
GleamMIAGREEClassExtractJob;9025:11:35
GleamMIAGREEClassPODLoadJob;9025:09:43

As you can see above, the "9196:53:12" value in the fourth record should be top of the list as it is the largest numerically

Is this what you want?

That's closer yes... although, I've highlighted above where records are out of line:

9025:11:35 - this should sit between 9025:19:10 and 9025:09:43

989:13:42 - this should be above 989:08:56

Wrote nonsense - will come up with a better idea, brb

Here it is:

Maybe not nice but works on Debian Linux. Not sure about the -I {} on xargs for other OS'es. On AIX I usually just leave it out iirc.