> Thanks Adam, Your suggestion has helped me solve the problem half
> way, but i am yet to get the proper output.
> I will repeat the whole process
>
> Master table
> CO_CODE Integer
> CO_NAME Varchar(16),
>
> Trans Table
> CO_CODE Integer NOT NULL,
> YRC Integer NOT NULL,
> SGTYPE Integer NOT NULL,
> SRNO Integer NOT NULL,
> STOPRC VARCHAR(8),
> STOPRN VARCHAR(35),
> STOSEG VARCHAR(35),
> STO FLOAT,
>
> Master table primary key - Co_code
> Trans table primary key - co_code, yrc, sgtype ,srno
>
> I have attached a sample datasheet
> when i run the following query i get the output in proper order as follows
>
> select master.co_code, co_name ,srno,yrc,sgtype from
> seg_scr,master where seg_scr.co_code = master.co_code order by
> co_name || '"'
>
>
> CO_CODE CO_NAME SRNO YRC SGTYPE
> 2096 3M India 1 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 2 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 3 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 4 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 5 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 6 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 7 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 9999 200212 1
> 2096 3M India 1 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 2 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 3 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 4 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 5 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 6 200312 1
> 2096 3M India 9999 200312 1
> In the above output the srno field comes in the proper order
> along with the YRC field
>
>
> but when i run the following query with the stoseg field the
> output goes for a toss.
> select first 20 master.co_code, co_name ,srno,yrc,sgtype,stoseg
> from seg_scr,master where seg_scr.co_code = master.co_code order
> by co_name || '"'
>
> CO_CODE CO_NAME SRNO YRC SGTYPE STOSEG
> 2096 3M India 4 200212 1 Health Care Markets
> 2096 3M India 3 200312 1 Health Care Markets
> 2096 3M India 3 200212 1 Electrical, Telecom & Elec
> 2096 3M India 1 200212 1 Industrial Markets
> 2096 3M India 1 200312 1 Industrial Markets
> 2096 3M India 6 200212 1 Consumer & Office, Constru
> 2096 3M India 5 200312 1 Consumer & Office, Constru
> 2096 3M India 9999 200212 1 Total
> 2096 3M India 9999 200312 1 Total
> 2096 3M India 5 200212 1 Traffic & Safety Markets
> 2096 3M India 4 200312 1 Traffic & Safety Markets
> 2096 3M India 7 200212 1 Others
> 2096 3M India 6 200312 1 Others
> 2096 3M India 2 200212 1 Automotive & Speciality Ma
> 2096 3M India 2 200312 1 Automotive & Speciality Ma
> 2096 3M India 3 200412 1 Health Care Markets
> 2096 3M India 1 200412 1 Industrial Markets
> 2096 3M India 1 200512 1 Industrial Markets
> 2096 3M India 5 200412 1 Consumer and Office, Constru
> 2096 3M India 9999 200412 1 Total
>
> In the above output if u notice the srno and the yrc are not in
> the proper order
>
> As my query is created dynamically from the UI, the field
> selection order depends on the user and the order by clause
> remains mandatory on the co_name. I cannot add any other field to
> the order by clause.
>
> Pls Help.
>
> Thanks
> Meena.
>

The second query hasn't "gone for a toss". They are both exactly what you
have asked for.
Both are order by co_name.
It just so happens that in the first query, the natural order after sorting
by co_name has aligned itself with your expectations. Make no mistake,
however, that this order in query 1, after sorting only by co_name is an
accident, or artifact of the engine retrieval.
You must always declare your order by clause exactly how you want it -
otherwise you are saying to the engine "and after that (ordering by
co_name), give them to me the fastest most convenient way you can".
If you cannot specify the fields you wish to order by, then your
design/interface needs re-work. If you want to use the field selection order
of the user, then you need to build an order by clause which reflects their
selection order but don't leave it out.
Alan