Hi Rolf and Steve,
My OS is MAS OS X 10.5.8
sort --version : sort (GNU coreutils) 5.93
Here is the result of the differents command line.
cat all.msf | sort -k 3 -n | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
y01_FA
cat all.msf | sort -t ' ' -k 2 -n | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
y01_FA
cat all.msf | sort -k 2 | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
y11_FA
When I look at the ouptut of sort, my shell orders only the unit number.
It doesn't use the decimal part.
cat all.msf | sort -k 2 -n
y01_FA 2.3574492500 .5149928333
y03_FA 2.7007018333 .6276878333
y04_FA 2.2736573333 .4934251666
y06_FA 2.2188285000 .5140117500
y09_FA 2.4416411666 .5374885000
y10_FA 2.1813674166 .4532854166
y11_FA 2.0237245000 .4157899166
y02_FA 3.0492390833 .7670747500
y05_FA 3.0221233333 .7417060000
y07_FA 3.0134415833 .7737685833
y08_FA 3.0019868333 .7800315000
y12_FA 3.1669953333 .8578153333
It's all good without the -n
cat all.msf | sort -k 2
y11_FA 2.0237245000 .4157899166
y10_FA 2.1813674166 .4532854166
y06_FA 2.2188285000 .5140117500
y04_FA 2.2736573333 .4934251666
y01_FA 2.3574492500 .5149928333
y09_FA 2.4416411666 .5374885000
y03_FA 2.7007018333 .6276878333
y08_FA 3.0019868333 .7800315000
y07_FA 3.0134415833 .7737685833
y05_FA 3.0221233333 .7417060000
y02_FA 3.0492390833 .7670747500
y12_FA 3.1669953333 .8578153333
Just to be sure, I check all.msf and it doesn't seem to have any funny
characters in it
od -c -b all.msf
0000000 y 0 1 _ F A 2 . 3 5 7 4 4 9 2
171 060 061 137 106 101 040 062 056 063 065 067 064 064 071 062
0000020 5 0 0 . 5 1 4 9 9 2 8 3 3 3 \n
065 060 060 040 056 065 061 064 071 071 062 070 063 063 063 012
0000040 y 0 2 _ F A 3 . 0 4 9 2 3 9 0
171 060 062 137 106 101 040 063 056 060 064 071 062 063 071 060
0000060 8 3 3 . 7 6 7 0 7 4 7 5 0 0 \n
070 063 063 040 056 067 066 067 060 067 064 067 065 060 060 012
0000100 y 0 3 _ F A 2 . 7 0 0 7 0 1 8
171 060 063 137 106 101 040 062 056 067 060 060 067 060 061 070
0000120 3 3 3 . 6 2 7 6 8 7 8 3 3 3 \n
063 063 063 040 056 066 062 067 066 070 067 070 063 063 063 012
0000140 y 0 4 _ F A 2 . 2 7 3 6 5 7 3
171 060 064 137 106 101 040 062 056 062 067 063 066 065 067 063
0000160 3 3 3 . 4 9 3 4 2 5 1 6 6 6 \n
063 063 063 040 056 064 071 063 064 062 065 061 066 066 066 012
0000200 y 0 5 _ F A 3 . 0 2 2 1 2 3 3
171 060 065 137 106 101 040 063 056 060 062 062 061 062 063 063
0000220 3 3 3 . 7 4 1 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 \n
063 063 063 040 056 067 064 061 067 060 066 060 060 060 060 012
0000240 y 0 6 _ F A 2 . 2 1 8 8 2 8 5
171 060 066 137 106 101 040 062 056 062 061 070 070 062 070 065
0000260 0 0 0 . 5 1 4 0 1 1 7 5 0 0 \n
060 060 060 040 056 065 061 064 060 061 061 067 065 060 060 012
0000300 y 0 7 _ F A 3 . 0 1 3 4 4 1 5
171 060 067 137 106 101 040 063 056 060 061 063 064 064 061 065
0000320 8 3 3 . 7 7 3 7 6 8 5 8 3 3 \n
070 063 063 040 056 067 067 063 067 066 070 065 070 063 063 012
0000340 y 0 8 _ F A 3 . 0 0 1 9 8 6 8
171 060 070 137 106 101 040 063 056 060 060 061 071 070 066 070
0000360 3 3 3 . 7 8 0 0 3 1 5 0 0 0 \n
063 063 063 040 056 067 070 060 060 063 061 065 060 060 060 012
0000400 y 0 9 _ F A 2 . 4 4 1 6 4 1 1
171 060 071 137 106 101 040 062 056 064 064 061 066 064 061 061
0000420 6 6 6 . 5 3 7 4 8 8 5 0 0 0 \n
066 066 066 040 056 065 063 067 064 070 070 065 060 060 060 012
0000440 y 1 0 _ F A 2 . 1 8 1 3 6 7 4
171 061 060 137 106 101 040 062 056 061 070 061 063 066 067 064
0000460 1 6 6 . 4 5 3 2 8 5 4 1 6 6 \n
061 066 066 040 056 064 065 063 062 070 065 064 061 066 066 012
0000500 y 1 1 _ F A 2 . 0 2 3 7 2 4 5
171 061 061 137 106 101 040 062 056 060 062 063 067 062 064 065
0000520 0 0 0 . 4 1 5 7 8 9 9 1 6 6 \n
060 060 060 040 056 064 061 065 067 070 071 071 061 066 066 012
0000540 y 1 2 _ F A 3 . 1 6 6 9 9 5 3
171 061 062 137 106 101 040 063 056 061 066 066 071 071 065 063
0000560 3 3 3 . 8 5 7 8 1 5 3 3 3 3 \n
063 063 063 040 056 070 065 067 070 061 065 063 063 063 063 012
0000600
sort with the -n option seems to not worked properly on my system.
I'm puzzled.
Sincerly,
Christophe
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:40, Rolf A. Heckemann <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Christophe
>
> The -n option to sort ensures numeric ordering (default is
> alphabetic). -k 2 specifies that you want to sort on the second field
> (key). The default field separator is a blank-to-nonblank-character
> transition (at least for the sort found in GNU coreutils). I suspect
> that your shell regards the understroke as a blank character.
> Therefore, your command tries to numerically sort a series of
> identical character strings ("FA"), so it gives up and returns the
> original ordering. If my suspicion is correct, each of the following
> should give you the result you want:
>
> cat all.msf | sort -k 3 -n | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
> # specifies the correct field (key) on which to sort
>
> cat all.msf | sort -t ' ' -k 2 -n | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
> # tells sort to use space as the field separator
> # (recommended if you generally have space-separated
> # values in your files)
>
> cat all.msf | sort -k 2 | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
> # (the one you found to work correctly)
> # because when you sort alphabetically, it sorts on the entire
> # string from the specified key to the end of the line, so it
> # does not matter that each string starts with "FA".
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Rolf
>
>
> On 24 February 2012 22:28, Christophe Bedetti
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi FSL list,
> >
> > I was looking at the way the best target image is chosen during the step
> > tbss_3_postreg when I use the -n option during the step tbss_2_reg.
> > Here is my all.msf.
> >
> > cat all.msf
> > y01_FA 2.3574492500 .5149928333
> > y02_FA 3.0492390833 .7670747500
> > y03_FA 2.7007018333 .6276878333
> > y04_FA 2.2736573333 .4934251666
> > y05_FA 3.0221233333 .7417060000
> > y06_FA 2.2188285000 .5140117500
> > y07_FA 3.0134415833 .7737685833
> > y08_FA 3.0019868333 .7800315000
> > y09_FA 2.4416411666 .5374885000
> > y10_FA 2.1813674166 .4532854166
> > y11_FA 2.0237245000 .4157899166
> > y12_FA 3.1669953333 .8578153333
> >
> > cat all.msf | sort -k 2 -n | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
> > y01_FA
> >
> > Shouldn't be y11_FA the best image in my case?
> > After searching a bit, I found that without the -n option of sort, the
> > output is y11_FA.
> >
> > cat all.msf | sort -k 2 | head -n 1 | awk '{print $1}'
> > y11_FA
> >
> > I'm not sure why.
> > I don't understand what is the -n option here.
> > Maybe the names of my subjects interfere with sort?
> >
> > Sincerly,
> >
> > Christophe
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rolf A Heckemann, MD PhD
> Médecin chercheur
> Fondation Neurodis
> CERMEP - Imagerie du Vivant
> Hôpital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer
> 59 Boulevard Pinel
> 69003 Lyon
> France
>
