*To*: debian-user@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: Possible bug in 'sort -m'*From*: Bob McGowan <bob_mcgowan@symantec.com>*Date*: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:37:11 -0700*Message-id*: <45F840D7.6020103@symantec.com>*In-reply-to*: <20070314105737.GG18027@fantomas.sk>*References*: <45F726F1.9020503@symantec.com> <20070314105737.GG18027@fantomas.sk>

Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

On 13.03.07 15:34, Bob McGowan wrote:sort -n -o from_number from_number sort -n -o to_number to_number[deleted]sort -m from_number to_number | uniq | wc -l 122010This is still almost 12000 too big (only 17 less than the 'uniq' on theseparate files). So, I run this:sort -u from_number to_number | wc -l And I get 110256, the same number as the SQL UNION gave me.So, if both files are sorted and I then use 'sort -m' followed by 'uniq'and count the results, shouldn't I get the same thing as resorting thetwo (already sorted) files with sort's '-u' option and counting that output?Either do not sort those files numerically, or _always_ use '-n' with sort. The latter may work, the first should work.I did wonder if I needed to use '-n' with the '-m', but that didn't fixanything, in fact, I got a different count: 121995.Am I missing something obvious, having to do with numbers and merging?Or is this a bug in sort?

$ sort -n -m from_number to_number > xxx $ wc -l from_number to_number xxx 84919 from_number 84919 to_number 169838 xxx 339676 total $ uniq xxx|wc -l 121995

This time, I apply the unique operation to the sort itself. $ sort -n -m -u from_number to_number > yyy $ wc -l yyy 121995 yyy And the result matches the result above, 121995.

$ sort -n -u from_number > aa $ sort -n -u to_number > bb $ sort -n -m aa bb > cc $ wc -l cc 122027 cc

So run 'uniq' on this result, you get: $ uniq cc | wc -l 110256

$ sort -n -m -u aa bb | wc -l 110256

But, they aren't.

**Attachment:
smime.p7s**

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Possible bug in 'sort -m'***From:*Cameron Hutchison <camh@xdna.net>

**References**:**Possible bug in 'sort -m'***From:*Bob McGowan <bob_mcgowan@symantec.com>

**Re: Possible bug in 'sort -m'***From:*Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Bug in acroread?** - Next by Date:
**adept error** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Possible bug in 'sort -m'** - Next by thread:
**Re: Possible bug in 'sort -m'** - Index(es):