Sorting apartment numbers in SQL - numerical lexicographical ordering

Question

I need to sort a table of apartment numbers in SQL. For those unfamiliar, these are not necessarily numbers, but numerical ordering needs to be applied as though they were.

For example, a possible set of apartment numbers would be ordered as-follows:

Doing ORDER BY CONVERT( int, ApartmentNumber ) wouldn't work because not all apartment-numbers are string-encoded decimal integers. Similarly doing ORDER BY ApartmentNumber wouldn't work because it would place 101 after 1000.

The other QAs on StackOverflow generally concern themselves with either a known fixed-format of value Sorting string column containing numbers in SQL? or doing the sort with error-handling: Sorting field by numerical value and lexicographical value

In my own project, a previous developer used this trick:

ORDER BY
    RIGHT('00000000000000000000' + RTRIM( ApartmentNumber ), 20 ) ASC

...which feels even worse. Thing is: this trick is algorithmically sound - it just feels like a hack to have to have the database engine perform string allocations (multiple times too, if they don't optimize the concatenation and RTRIM into a single string operation).

Another approach proffered on SO is:

ORDER BY
    LEN( ApartmentNumber ),
    ApartmentNumber

...however this yields this incorrect ordering of the input set:

I'm using SQL Server 2012 locally (in 2008 (Level 100) compatibility mode) and this application will be deployed to an Azure SQL server (Azure SQL V12).

UPDATE:

I've been considering some options, I think the "best" is to use a fixed-length char(10) field instead of varchar(10) and to ensure that the content of the field is always left-aligned, that way the sort-order will be ensured with a simple ORDER BY ApartmentNumber.

UPDATE 2: I realised the above idea (char(10)) doesn't solve the problem of 200A needing to be sorted before 2000. I think the best solution would be to normalize the values to a uniform integer representation and storing that int value in the database. The algorithm to do the conversion would be best (i.e. most succinctly) if it were not written in SQL.

@vkp I was hoping there might be a good cross-platform solution, but I'm targeting SQL Server 2012 and SQL Azure V12. — Dai
– Dai, Commented Aug 22, 2016 at 0:09
Perhaps you need to come up with a set of masks that match up with all the various formats. — shawnt00
– shawnt00, Commented Aug 22, 2016 at 0:13
@shawnt00 Looking at the text - I see what it should really do is identify the first numeric value in the string, sort by that, and then do a lexicographical sort. — Dai
– Dai, Commented Aug 22, 2016 at 0:33
Given you're using SQL Server, are you able to use CLR stored procedures? — jdphenix
– jdphenix, Commented Aug 22, 2016 at 0:34

shawnt00 · Accepted Answer · 2016-08-22 04:42:07Z

0

I don't think my original idea of using simple masking patterns was going to work well and I ended up reducing the problem to these four expressions. Hopefully you can find some value in it all.

order by
    case
         when patindex('%[0-9][A-Z-]%', apt) > 0
           then cast(substring(apt, 1, patindex('%[0-9][A-Z-]%', apt)) as int)
         when patindex('[0-9]%', apt) = 1
           then cast(apt as int)
         else 99999
    end /* numeric_prefix */,
    case
         when patindex('%[A-Z][0-9-]%', apt) > 0
           then left(apt, patindex('%[A-Z][0-9-]%', apt))
         when patindex('[A-Z]%', apt) = 1
           then apt
         else ''
    end /* char_prefix */,
    case 
         when patindex('%[A-Z-][0-9]%', apt) > 0
           then cast(substring(apt, patindex('%[A-Z-][0-9]%', apt) + 1, 10) as int)
         else 0
    end /* numeric_suffix */,
    replace(apt, '-', '') /* stripped_hyphen */,
    case when charindex('-', apt) = 0 then 0 else 1 end /* sort_hyphen_last */

http://rextester.com/MFYVN38156

Here's an single expression that you could store and use for sorting:

case
     when patindex('%[0-9][A-Z-]%', apt) > 0
     then right('*****' + left(apt, patindex('%[0-9][A-Z-]%', apt)), 5) +
          right('>>>>>' +
              replace(substring(apt, patindex('%[0-9][A-Z-]%', apt) + 1, 10), '-', ''), 5)
     when patindex('%[A-Z][0-9-]%', apt) > 0
     then right('>>>>>' + left(apt, patindex('%[A-Z][0-9-]%', apt)), 5) +
          right('*****' +
              replace(substring(apt, patindex('%[A-Z][0-9-]%', apt) + 1, 10), '-', ''), 5)
     when patindex('[0-9]%', apt) = 1 then right('*****' + apt, 5) + '>>>>>'
     when patindex('[A-Z]%', apt) = 1 then right('>>>>>' + apt, 5) + '*****'
     else '>>>>>*****'
end +
case when charindex('-', apt) = 0 then '' else '-' end /* collate Latin1_General_BIN */

> was chosen as a character that sorts between the digits and alphabetic characters. * falls before the digits. The output looks like this:

   apt     sort_string  
 -------- ------------- 
  1        ****1>>>>>   
  10       ***10>>>>>   
  101      **101>>>>>   
  101-A    **101>>>>A-  
  200      **200>>>>>   
  200A     **200>>>>A   
  200-A    **200>>>>A-  
  1000     *1000>>>>>   
  2000     *2000>>>>>   
  C        >>>>C*****   
  D        >>>>D*****   
  E        >>>>E*****   
  E10      >>>>E***10   
  E100     >>>>E**100   
  E-100    >>>>E**100-  
  E101     >>>>E**101   
  E-101    >>>>E**101-  
  E200     >>>>E**200   
  E-200    >>>>E**200-  
  E1000    >>>>E*1000   
  E-1001   >>>>E*1001-  
  F        >>>>F*****

edited Aug 22, 2016 at 4:42

answered Aug 22, 2016 at 0:24

shawnt00

18.1k3 gold badges23 silver badges25 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

Dai Over a year ago

I'm curious what the runtime performance of this is. I note that if the individual WHEN cases are evaluated sequentially (instead of in-parallel) then they could be rearranged into a tree to avoid unnecessary evaluation.

shawnt00 Over a year ago

How often are you going to be running this whole operation? Is performance really something you need to worry much about here?

WonderWorker Over a year ago

This solution doesn't place negative numbers before positive numbers. This could be fixed by replacing the final line with case when charindex('-', apt) = 0 then '+' else '-' end /* collate Latin1_General_BIN */

shawnt00 Over a year ago

Were we expecting negative apartment numbers?

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Sorting apartment numbers in SQL - numerical lexicographical ordering

1 Answer 1

4 Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Sorting apartment numbers in SQL - numerical lexicographical ordering

1 Answer 1

4 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related