Hi...the default behavior of PROC SORT is the EQUALS option...keep observations in their original order within the sorted BY variable(s). If you use...

proc sort data = one out = three noequals; by x ; run ;

you get the same result in your example (and faster sorts on large files) from PROC SORT and PROC SQL (at least in V9.1.3 on Windows XP).

Mike Zdeb U@Albany School of Public Health 1 University Drive Rensselaer, NY 12144-3456 (P)518-402-6479 (F)630-604-1475

toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL .COM> To Sent by: "SAS(r) SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Discussion" cc <SAS-L@LISTSERV.U GA.EDU> Subject Re: SQL Sort Different than Proc Sort 11/09/2005 11:22 AM

Please respond to toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL .COM>

T J ,

From my output window:

from sql 309 08:42 Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Obs x y

1 00001 234 2 00001 456 3 00001 345 4 00001 123 5 00002 123 6 00003 123

from proc sort 310 08:42 Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Obs x y

1 00001 123 2 00001 456 3 00001 345 4 00001 234 5 00002 123 6 00003 123

Well I guess I shouldnt have said that proc sort was ordering on X and Y but rather should not proc sql sort and proc sort return the same results.

Toby Dunn

From: T J <tjpush@YAHOO.COM> Reply-To: T J <tjpush@YAHOO.COM> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: SQL Sort Different than Proc Sort Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:13:33 -0500

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:50:52 +0000, toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Interesting results I have found between Proc Sort and SQL Sort: > > >data one ; >infile cards ; >input x $5. y ; >cards ; >00001 123 >00001 456 >00001 345 >00002 123 >00003 123 >00001 234 >; >run ; > > >proc sql ; >create table two as > select * > from one > order by x ; >quit ; > >proc sort > data = one > out = three ; >by x ; >run ; > >proc print >data = two ; >run ; > >proc print >data = three ; >run ; > > > >Wonder why the SQL sort algorithm is different than proc sort. In other >words why does Proc Sort order on x and y and proc sql sort only orders by X >when I specify only to order on X . > >Toby Dunn

My testing shows that the proc sort result is what I expected, the y column is not sorted, and it has retained the orig. sequence - the 1st y of a given x appears first after x is sorted, 2nd as 2nd, and so on.

T J