MariaAux

Display Find Results in a Portal

12 posts in this topic

Hi There,

I did a google search to learn more about displaying find results in a portal i.e. perform a find and only those resluts should be displayed within a portal and I found a couple of ideas. One was the concept of multi-key fields but I noticed the video was done with an older version of Filemaker. With FM 11, we have the ability to do a filter within a portal based on a calcualtion and I wonder whether there isn't an easier way now with FM11 to use this portal filter functionality to produce a portal with only the find results?

Is Multi-keys still the best way or is there a better way with Portal filters?

Thanks so much for your advice and time.

Maria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A portal filter doesn't have any "awareness" of the found set, so it can't really help you there. A multi-key field seems like the way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to display find results in a portal? What's wrong with displaying them in list view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Multi-keys still the best way or is there a better way with Portal filters?

Hi Maria,

It is usually best to use relational filter instead of portal filter because portal filters have to evaluate all records before constraiining the results. This is great stress on your system when you have a lot of records. And since either way, you would need to collect the IDs of the record-set, it is best to use multi-line (global or calculation) in new relationship to the portal. Check out this thread for gathering IDs from a found set: http://fmforums.com/forum/topic/61394-found-set/page__hl__agn%C3%A8s__fromsearch__1

Hi Dan,

Sometimes it helps (when viewing a form layout of multiple records) to see a portal on the side of those same records. It acts as an visual index and can allow click-jumping to specific records within the found set. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would qualify that statement about portal filters; you can do both.

If the potential set of unfiltered records is large, then the relationship should be designed as the first filter. Portal filtering can then be used as a secondary filter.

The portal filter calculation will operate on the entire record set of values presented by the relationship. The portal filter calc operates on these records strictly in creation order, independent of how the relationship definition or portal definition sorts them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bruce. Yes, many times we further portal-filter a relationally filtered relationship. Whew! That was a bite-full!

The portal filter calc operates on these records strictly in creation order, independent of how the relationship definition or portal definition sorts them.

I did not know this! I thought this was interesting but wait ... it would not really matter since all of the related records must be walked through by the filter anyway, would it? Where might knowing that sorts are ignored by portal filters, be important? After all, we are talking about filtering and not calculating, right? Thanks for stepping in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you are trying to do with the filter calc.

For instance, assume a sorted relationship to a people table, sorted by last name; where the relation uses a global field to match on City.

Set the filter field to "Seattle". Say there are 2000 Seattle people; 75 whose last names begin with "A".

Have a script that sets variable $$names to empty and then does a refresh.

The portal filter uses this calc:

Let( $$names = List( $$names; People::LastName); Left( People::LastName; 1) = "A")

What will the portal show?

(Only the 75 Seattle people whose last names start with "A"; sorted by last name).

What will $$names contain?

(The list of all 2000 Seattle last names; unsorted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or consider this variation for the filter calc:

case( Left( People::LastName; 1) = "A";

Let( $$names = List( $$names; People::LastName); 1)

)

Now $$names contains the list of Seattle last names beginning with "A"; but it is unsorted.

If instead you collected the record ID values into the variable, you might have assumed it represented a sorted list. But it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all so much for your invlauable advice. Got me where I wanted to be! Thanks a million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dan, Sometimes it helps (when viewing a form layout of multiple records) to see a portal on the side of those same records. It acts as an visual index and can allow click-jumping to specific records within the found set. :)

I'd never heard of this interface technique before; sounds interesting. I couldn't see any practial use of displaying find results in a portal, so thanks for pointing this out.

Now you got my gears turning though... This could possibly be an alternative to using a filtered portal. It would take a lot more work on the developers end, but it would allow for greater flexability for the users 'filters'.

The portal filter calculation will operate on the entire record set of values presented by the relationship. The portal filter calc operates on these records strictly in creation order, independent of how the relationship definition or portal definition sorts them.

Interesting detail. like LaRetta, I failed to see the relevance of this at first, but your examples were interesting. I can see how this aspect of the portal filter could possibly be levereged for some cool custom feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda reviving an old topic but I found this intresting. I have a layout that show work orders on the left, on a portal that filter by the work order status, on the right it shows the whole record that is selected on the left portal. All good.

I also have a list layout simple because the search found most of the time contain many records and my users like to visualize all the records and find the one they need, as they usualy dont have the very exact work order ID when they need to use the search, so, using the same layout design that filters the work orders by status, but filtering to show only the found set records is actualy very usefull.

Many records found showing on a list on the left, and the whole record showing all the fields on the right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Morenomdz,

Wasn't sure if you had a question there (seemingly not), but your revival of the thread provides a great opportunity to point out that, since the time of the original thread, there have been some significant advances in the area of "Master-Detail" (portal-plus-detail) layouts. See, for example, Todd Geist's Master-Detail and Master-Detail 2.0 techniques at Modular FileMaker, which build upon Bruce's Virtual List technique.

(Also reminds me that it's been a while since I last checked to see what's new at Modular FileMaker—I notice that Dan Smith's got a recent entry—so I guess I know what I'm going to be doing this morning.)

hth,

Mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By FM_Newbie
      Hi Guys,
      I am having trouble with Find Operation getting slower and slower each day. There are some design consideration as per some articles i have read recently which i will be doing as well.
      I inherited this solution from another developer, Find is based on some Calculation fields which are based further on some other calculation fields (both calculation fields have 'Do not store results' option checked)
      I know its not the best of designs, i wanted to ask for any possible improvement to Find process as its getting clumsy now.
      I have indexed relevant fields though, data in the table isn't huge, around 2000 records with 50 fields but Find is based on unstored calculation fields mainly.
      Can PSOS be used in Find Operation? 
      Is there any other thing i must do at the beginning.
      Thanks much,
    • By Wayne Irvine
      I have a FileMaker layout with a portal to another table. The relationship shows all unassigned records (related < 1). On each portal row I have a button which runs a script. The idea is that when you press the button the a value from the main record is copied and pasted into a field in the portal row (and as a result the portal record becomes 'assigned' and is removed from the portal.
      I have the button running a script and pasting the value from the main record but it is pasting it in the first portal record, not the one whose button was clicked.

      Is there a simple way of having the value pasted into the portal record where the button was clicked or do I have to store the record number (or something) and paste back to that record?

    • By sinisa93
      Hi!
      I have two separate questions regarding portals and how they work. Before I start let me describe what I'm doing. I'm constructing DB for local karate club. I have one table/layout with general info about members, I have second table/layout with records about belts (including color of the belt, when & where the belt was obtained, the mentor of the member & sparing partners of the member etc.) and I have 3rd table/layout that shows various activities of each member (there are also several other tables but not important for this topic). All tables are connected via key field (ID number)
      QUESTION 1
      I have no problem creating portals on 3rd layout to show me which belts particular member has with all additional info from the second table that go along with it. BUT I don't know how to create a portal that shows all members of the club that had particular member as sparing partner. Thing is that I have 3 separate fields for sparing partner because each member can have up to 3 sparing partners and I simply don't know how to connect them all so I can see the list of all members that have particular member as one of three possible sparing partners.
      QUESTION 2
      I know how to place count of related records in filtered portal but I'm not sure how to get a Total of this counts.
      Any help is much appreciated!
       
    • By Volker Gurtler
      The database has table1 with “Sample No” field relating it to table2 with “Sample No” field. Table 2 has a portal on a layout with Table1. Each portal row has the Category field with one of 3 values (MF,BP and CC). There are about 7000 samples. Each sample has from 1-12 portal rows displayed with 1 or more occurrences of the 3 category values one of the values shows the count of each value per sample.
       
      The question is how do I write a script so that every sample has all 3 category values (MF,BP and CC)?
       
      I have the following scripts for when there is only one value/portal - one for each of the 3 values (3 scripts are the same except that “Molecular Function” is substituted for BP or CC and “Molecular Function” = MF):
       
      Perform Find [ Specified Find Requests: Find Records; Criteria: Transcript Database::Regulation: “=test” ] 
       
      [ Restore ] 
      Perform Script [ “Sort by Sample No” ] Go to Record/Request/Page 
      [ First ] 
      Loop
      Go to Portal Row 
      [ Select; First ]
      If [ GO_GOT::Putative Gene Function Category 
      "Molecular Function" ] 
      ≠ "Molecular Function" ] 
      ≠ If [ GO_GOT::Putative Gene Function Category 
      Go to Portal Row 
      [ Select; Next ] 
      Go to Portal Row 
      [ Select; Last ]
      Set Field [ GO_GOT::Putative Gene Function Category; "Molecular Function" ] 
      End If End If 
      Go to Record/Request/Page 
      [ Next; Exit after last ] 
      End Loop 
       
      I can not get a script to work on a portal with only 2 categories so that only one of the 3 categories is added per sample.
      Transcript Database v05 test.fmp12
    • By docasar
      Hello,
      I am newbie to filemaker pro but love it   Said so, I am struggling a solution that I am building for management of holiday apartments, based on FMSP. I have created a table for bookings, and apartments, and now I am working with another table call Daytariffs that would give the price for each day of the year for each apartment. So far I have being able to show the available apartments for a range of dates, but what I am struggling now is to show the prices for those days. Basically, what I have done on the DayTariffs table is to load 365 days (records) then I have created a field called "Range" and put a calculations that shows "YES" if a date is within the dates I have set on the Booking layout as StartDate and EndDate (this dates are global fields). I have created relationship between Daytariffs and Bookings through ID_DayTariffs (Daytariffs table) = id_daytariffs (Bookings table). Later,  I have also created a global field called "BookingDAYS" on Bookings tables and set the field value as "YES", and I have created a new relationship that relates BookingDAYS = Range.
      Then I have created a portal based on the the relationship between BookingDAYS=Range, on the Bookings Layout but wont show any records  I am stuck here because if I change the Range field to be just text without any calculation and I write "YES" then the portal works, but as soon as I put the calculation back, the related records disappear...
      I have checked that calculated result on Range field is set as Text as well as BookinDAYS is a text field... also what have noticed is that the relationship graph for BookingDAYS=Range has this simbol at both sides "|---" when normally would have a three lines (like a folk) when I choose any other filed for that realtionship instead of Range.
      I am attaching screenshots of relationship graph, booking layout and DayTariffs Table
      Any ideas what I am missing here?
      Thanks a lot.
      Luis