If I understand correctly, you can in fact sort on a secondary thing when you do not state the data source as:
do a Search for Job
but instead do
do a Search for Account’s Job.
This allows you to sort dynamically on Account and also lets you add a :sorted or :filtered constraint on the Job part of the string allowing you to sort on that.
However, my problem is with the fact that I have one central data type ‘Job’ which has a lot of other data types connected. In my case, a Job can have multiple Users, Accounts connected. But also a data type called ‘Contact’, ‘Calculation’ and ‘Invoice’ as well as ‘Files’.
In the example I gave initially it is not just one secondary thing I need to reference, but multiple. I do not seem to come any further than two at this point with the solution you stated and my example above because even when you merge a data source, that second data source should be of the same data type.
This is why I come back to my initial proposal as for me it is far more logical to reference (within constraints) all the other Things through the one data type that connects them all (the Job). Is this from a data architecture perspective illogical and inefficient?
In the RG I can easily list ‘Current cell’s Job’s Account’s Contact’s email’ (going three levels deep), but sorting on that email field will be impossible?