SORT sortedset BY score

[bungle]

I just found out that executing this:

SORT sortedset BY nosort

Actually doesn't return the values in the order they are in sorted set. Could we extend SORT command to support this:

SORT sortedset BY score

Or is there another way to archive this without extra keys?

[huangzworks]

use ZRANGEBYSCORE or ZREVRANGEBYSCORE instead.

[bungle]

I should have been more explicit.

How about this:

SORT sortedset BY score GET item:*

[huangzworks]

hmmm, you want something like this?

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> ZADD s 1 a
(integer) 1
redis 127.0.0.1:6379> ZADD s 2 b 
(integer) 1
redis 127.0.0.1:6379> ZADD s 3 c
(integer) 1

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> MSET item:a "item:a" item:b "item:b" item:c "item:c"
OK

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> SORT s ALPHA
1) "a"
2) "b"
3) "c"

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> SORT s ALPHA GET item:*
1) "item:a"
2) "item:b"
3) "item:c"

"BY score" is not needed here, "SORT sortedset" is enough, and i use "SORT s ALPHA" because sorted set 's' is stored string value.

[antirez]

Hello, I'm usually not very inclined about making changes to SORT, it's at its maximum level of complexity already IMHO, and the scripting support in 2.6 will make it easy to do fancy stuff server side.

But... I must agree that "SORT sortedset BY nosort" should return elements ordered by score as it is the least surprise behavior for sure, and is probably also faster since the sorted set is a linked list.

So I'm accepting this feature as: "make sure that when no sorting is performed by SORT, elements in a sorted set are returned in the obvious order, that is, by score".

Thanks for reporting.

[bungle]

Hi huangz1990,

I already knew that you can do that (see my original question "without extra keys"). It's rather nasty to duplicate the scores to extra keys when you already have the scores in sorted set.

antirez,

Your suggestion is fine as with this "nosort" behavior we have the same functionality as with for example:

ASC Sorting sorted set (i.e. SORT sortedset BY score):

SORT sortedset BY nosort
SORT sortedset BY nosort ASC

DESC Sorting sorted set (i.e. SORT sortedset BY score DESC):

SORT sortedset BY nosort DESC

[ingoclaro]

this would be nice to have. I'm currently making an zrevrange to get the elements ordered, storing them in a list and then doing the sort to retrieve a list of hashes. With this I could skip that extra step.

[windix]

Any update on this? We were caught by it recently.

Currently we have to maintain another extra_list just to store the score just for sorting:

SORT sortedset BY extra_list GET another_list

With this implemented we can get rid of that extra_list

[klodio]

windix:

I just tried

> SORT sortedset BY score GET item_* 

and it works for me, in 2.6.

[windix]

Hi Klodio,

I tried on the latest version 2.6.0-RC5 and it doesn't work for me. I guess it treats the "score" as an non-existing key, so sorting is simply skipped. See "Skip sorting the elements" in http://redis.io/commands/sort

Correct me if i am wrong, thanks :)

[klodio]

You're right,
The set I was checking with happened to be already sorted, so I couldn't realize that sort was skipped. My bad, should have done some proper checking before posting :).

[myanimal]

I'd also appreciate this feature.

[swarupe04]

Any update on this. It would tremendously help in my case, instead of having to keep track of another set of keys just for sorting.

[bungle]

Any updates to this? It was posted and approved about a year ago, but it's still unresolved. Antirez even said that it could increase the performance. This sounds trivial to fix. Am I wrong?

[n0nSmoker]

We neeeeeed this feature too)

[antirez]

Note: make sure that ASC/DESC will do what makes sense in this context.

[swarupe04]

Hi Antirez,

Are u indicating that this feature already exists?

[antirez]

Fixed & merged into 2.6. Closing, thanks for your help.

[jadlr]

Does this mean that this...

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> zadd globalscores 1 user1 2 user2 3 user3 4 user4
(integer) 4
redis 127.0.0.1:6379> SORT globalscores BY nosort DESC
1) "user4"
2) "user3"
3) "user2"
4) "user1"

has the same complexity as:

redis 127.0.0.1:6379> zrevrange globalscores 0 -1
1) "user4"
2) "user3"
3) "user2"
4) "user1"

[ghost]

Does anyone knows the answer to the last question?
I would really help me. Thanks