15 posts in this topic
Is there a difference in how Filemaker reads/acts on the two following Relationships:
1. Parent Table A --< Join Table AB >-- Parent Table B and
2. Parent Table B --< Join Table BA >-- Parent Table A ?
After my last disastrous foray into designing a Relationship Graph, I went back to the Filemaker Training Series to re-re-re-read about building correct ERDs and Relationship Graphs, but only managed to confuse myself even more. The FTS examples all use the Anchor and Buoy concept, but seem to have a huge amount of unnecessary repetition, unless I'm completely off base. Using their "04_Bonsai" Relationship Graph as an example, they have one Anchor-Buoy set of
ORDER --< order_LINEITEM >-- order_lineitem_PRODUCT and another Anchor-Buoy set of
PRODUCT --< product_LINEITEM >-- product_lineitem_ORDER.
These seem functionally IDENTICAL to me - you can even swap the icons around so the ORDER TO is on the left, the LINEITEM TO is in the middle, and the PRODUCT TO is on the right for both sets without changing the Relationships between them (and yet a third set with LINEITEM on the left and both lineitem_ORDER and lineitem_PRODUCT to it's right, which can be manipulated to match the above two sets as well).
If i'm sitting on a record in the ORDER TO, looking through the LINEITEM TO into the PRODUCT TO, does it matter if I have to look left or have to look right? Or are they just adding a bunch of Anchor-Buoy sets on the Graph to, ummmm, "clarify" process flows? Are there any performance issues in eliminating the redundant TOs? Is it considered a Best Practice to place a TO on the left of the Graph for every Table and delineate Relationships to the right of each beginning TO?04_Bonsai Relationship Graph.pdf
I have included a screenshot of the Relationship Graph (squished to fit) to illustrate my problem and, as always, your insights are greatly appreciated.
I am building a digital asset manager in FM 13 for Windows. I am having problems displaying filtered data in a portal. I have series of scripts that bulk imports the file names & folder structure and creates a collapsible hierarchical keyword structure that is comparable to the folder structure. It creates all the joins between keywords and assets.
When "Fiat" is clicked, all assets associated with this path are shown in a second "Asset" portal using the filter:
not IsEmpty ( FilterValues ( Data for Keywords::ID ; global::gCurrent Keyword ) )
This portion works fine. User added keywords are intended to appear in the same keyword portal using the structure of:
c: (imported example above)
------User Added keyword (ie Fiat)
A script inserts the user created keyword alphabetically into the keyword hierarchy and creates the join table record. This is where the problem occurs. Clicking on the user keyword in the keyword portal returns an empty asset portal. I have double checked all PK values in the asset and keyword tables against the matching join table records and they are correct. I have also manually deleted and inserted working and no-working join link records to see if there is an issue with how the joins are created (manually vs script) without affect.
Any suggestions on why this may be occurring would be greatly appreciated.
I am very much a novice with FM so any assistance is greatly appreciated. I am using FM 13 to develop a local digital asset manager. I have one portal with a list of keywords connected to a list of assets via a join table. When a keyword (button) is selected, the related ASSETS are displayed in a second portal. On a basic level, this setup works correctly. However, I am trying to expand the ASSETS that are displayed.
Currently, the ASSET portal is filtered using:
global::gCurrent Keyword = Data for Keywords::ID
Given this example
If I enter "1" or "2" in global::gCurrent Keyword, then the expected records are displayed (1= doc1 & doc2, 2= doc3 & doc4). However if I enter a list containing 1¶2 then nothing is displayed.
Any suggestions on how this could be resolved would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Hi - I'm trying to do something that seems like it should be doable, but I can't quite figure out how to do it - I've thought about using relationships and SQL, but neither quite gets me there.
I have 4 tables: Visits, VisitClaims, Claims, Account. The relationship between Visits and Claims is many to many, thus the join.
When I'm standing on the Claims table , I can easily see all the visits that are assigned to that Claim - simple.
If I'm standing on Account, I can see all the visits that have been assigned to claims using that account
What I'm trying to do is stand on Claims, and find Visits that have NOT been assigned to claims using the same account as the current claim.
In other words, when I go to create a claim, I don't want to see visits that have previously been assigned to claims associated with the same account as the current claim.
I'm sure I could do this with some kind of multi-step find -- Find the set of visits that were assigned and then omit those from the full set - but I'm not sure how to create a portal filtered by that definition. I could do a script that runs the find, but I'd have to rerun it every time something changes. That's a possibility, but I'd prefer not to do it that way.
It seems like there must be a more straightforward way to do this...
I am a surgeon trying to create a FM solution to analyse some of the cases I have been involved in.
The main table I have set up is: Patients and one patient can have many "Referrals"; "Consultations"; "Admissions" and "Operations" - I have set up one to many relationships and this all seems to work fine.
I am working on the relationships between "Operations" and "Surgeons"; "Procedures"; "Antibiotics" and "Complications". I believe these should be many to many relationships; i.e. one operation can have many surgeons and one surgeon can do many operations. Thus I have set up a join table containing the foreign keys for Operation and Surgeon.
I want to be able to enter surgeon specific data (Name, Grade etc) in the Operation table by looking for it in the Surgeon table.
I believe this would be best done using a portal.
Try as I might, I cannot get this to work. The portal just appears as a box in browse mode and I cannot enter it, let alone, look up records from it.
I have set the portal to allow entry in Browse mode and have set the relationship to allow creations of records via this relationship in the Operation table.
I am going around in circles and not getting anywhere! I would be grateful for any help.
I have attached to file
Pilonidal Solution v.2.fmp12