Hi romyo,

You should add your specific field 'numeric value' in the "order view" of your search type.

Regards,
Mehdi.

Hello Mehdi,

thank you for your interest in this problem, I'm trying to analyze every detail of this thing but maybe there is something that I still miss...

here's what I've now

I guess that it respects the conditions (it's a numeric value and it's in the ordering, obviously it's also present in the list)... but still I'm lost, I'm sorry...

What is the result after you do this? Is it ordered like this? 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20 etc.?

If you, you need to make the storage of your field an integer rather than VarChar - do this by ticking the "alter" box on your field's storage and selecting int(11).

You will then need to re-open and save all your content items.

Hello _jrmo, thanks for your post

the actual order it's like 9-1-8-5-4 etc etc... totally incorrect.

I've tried your suggestion and found out another problem though, the value I pass through the form was not being saved!
Inserting the values directly into the database allows me to see that this way the list display as it should...

Hi romyo,

I have two suggestions:

• i think you should have this storage setting for your field "ranking": standard > article > ranking
• can you enable the debug mode for your search type? And send us the resulted query. To enable the debug mode, you can click on button "configuration" in your search type. You will find setting debug. Please, select option "everyone" or "superadmin".

Regards,
Mehdi.

Hi again Mehdi,

I premise that I'm almost ok with the manual solution of inserting the right values from the database, but for the sake of research I guess it's could be good to understand this strange behaviour.

As a first thing I've deleted the previous ranking field, in some way it was "corrupted" since whenever I was trying to change the storage method in standard or custom mode... this was never be saved.
Now I've created another field, at the moment it's a text field and the storage method it's like Mehdi suggested, the problem though remains the same

20-19-2-5, is an example of the order I'm getting now
and this is the debug query
SELECT t0.id as pid, t0.pk as pk, t0.pkb as pkb,t0.cck as cck, t0.storage_location as loc,tt.id AS type_id, tt.alias AS type_alias FROM `#__cck_core` AS t0 LEFT JOIN `#__content` AS t1 ON t1.id = t0.pk LEFT JOIN `#__cck_core_types` AS tt ON tt.name = t0.cck WHERE t1.state = 1 AND t1.access IN (1,1,2,3) AND ( t1.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR t1.publish_up <= '2013-07-30 08:36:15' ) AND ( t1.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR t1.publish_down >= '2013-07-30 08:36:15' ) AND t0.cck = 'cloud_storage_provider' GROUP BY t0.pk ORDER BY t1.ordering ASC

0.011 seconds (+0.011); 13.32 MB (+13.316) - afterSearch [Cache=OFF]
0.109 seconds (+0.098); 15.67 MB (+2.356) - afterRender [Cache=OFF]

I'm very curious at the moment, I'll try once again to alter the table and change the field as a number.
cheers :)

Hi romyo,

Can you share with us the configuration of your menu link?

In the resulted query from the search type, i see ORDER BY t1.ordering ASC. This means that your articles is oredered based the ordering data not based on your numeric field. This caused by the configuration of your menu link.

Regards,
Mehdi.