Multilevel Sorting?

Not in one fell swoop, first sort the least significant etc
assume you would sort by columns A, B, C and D (in that order of
significance)
select C:D and sort in that order, then select A:D and sort by A

--
Regards,

Peo Sjoblom


"Mike" <Mike@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DF2ABEE-4FDE-4B0B-AC0E-A8E7A2D6072D@microsoft.com...
> Is there a way to get around the 3 level limit in sortng. Want to sort by
> 4
> sets to 4 levels or more.

Hi, Peo:

If the data requires 4 columns, A:D, I don't think you want to "select C:D and
sort" do you? That will uncouple the data in columns C and D from that in
columns A and B.

I think you mean to select columns A:D, sort on D (or C and D), then with A:D
still selected, sort on A, B, and C (or A and B). No?


On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:40:36 -0700, "Peo Sjoblom" <terre08@mvps.org> wrote:

>Not in one fell swoop, first sort the least significant etc
>assume you would sort by columns A, B, C and D (in that order of
>significance)
>select C:D and sort in that order, then select A:D and sort by A

Correct, meant select all columns and sort by the least significant first
Thanks

--


Peo Sjoblom


"Myrna Larson" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:kj18619ts2eqpv72fdne87o1u4ctbbdlai@4ax.com...
> Hi, Peo:
>
> If the data requires 4 columns, A:D, I don't think you want to "select C:D
> and
> sort" do you? That will uncouple the data in columns C and D from that in
> columns A and B.
>
> I think you mean to select columns A:D, sort on D (or C and D), then with
> A:D
> still selected, sort on A, B, and C (or A and B). No?
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:40:36 -0700, "Peo Sjoblom" <terre08@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Not in one fell swoop, first sort the least significant etc
>>assume you would sort by columns A, B, C and D (in that order of
>>significance)
>>select C:D and sort in that order, then select A:D and sort by A
>