nikarc

Is there a way to batch process a group of database files to make them single-user? If so, would I write a batch file to do it? I'm running Server 5.5 and Win2k. Thanks in advance, Kyle

I have three database files - Subjects Main, Subjects UF, and Subjects BT. Their purpose is for a database of subject headings for books, where Main has unique headings. UF (Used For) contains subject headings that are obsolete - there can be zero or more of these. BT (Broader Term) contains a heading that is more general than the Main one - there can be zero or more of these as well. There is a 1:M relationship between Main and UF, as well as Main and BT, Main being the parent is both cases. What I need is a single report that lists each Main subject heading once, along with any associated UF heading(s), followed by any BT ones. For example: MainHeading1 UF UFHeading1 UFHeading2 UFHeading3 BT BTHeading1 BTHeading2 MainHeading2 etc... I'm not entirely sure if this is possible. The only idea I have is to somehow join together all three files into one file, which will yield some records with UF headings, some with BT headings, all with (a particular) Main heading. Any ideas or suggestions? Thanks in advance, Kyle

Awesome! That was exactly what I was looking for! Thanks again!

I want to define a value list in file A that contains items from field X (in the same file) for records with matching field Y. The trick is that I want to exclude the current record's X value (X values are unique) when I'm looking at the value list. Thus, I'm looking for a dynamic value list that changes based on the current record that I'm browsing. For example: A1, X=1, Y=1 A2, X=2, Y=1 A3, X=3, Y=1 A4, X=4, Y=2 A5, X=5, Y=3 For record A1, I want a value list of "2|3" For record A2, I want the value list to change to "1|3" For record A3, we'd have "1|2" Is this even possible? My initial thoughts were to relate via a self-join based on Y:Y, giving a subset of A's records with the same Y value. Using this, I get very close but this is just one step away from what I need and I'm stumped on how to modify it. Any ideas?

Thanks for the replies. I think dbruggmann's idea will be best, as we just need to know once which fields are where (and if they aren't used anywhere we'll delete them). Plus it's cheaper! Kyle

Is there a way to find out on which layouts a particular field is used? Our company is doing a database cleanup/overhaul and we need to identify the "obsolete" fields that are no longer being used. Thanks in advance, Kyle

Another caveat. If you have field validation turned on for any fields in the db and some records fail it, it will cause the loop to hang when it tries to go to the next record...

I believe that a script will work better. I'm working on records of text data that should never (individually) be bigger than 64k, and I'm only working with a subset of that record's data.

Thanks for the reply. My text field can contain an arbitrary amount of grouped "chunks" - only the amount of characters per chunk is fixed (at 12). I'm not sure I can use a calc field unless I pick a sufficiently large max chunks number and have an insanely long calc field definition..

How would I do the following (if possible): I have a text field foo with a string of numbers that are implicitly grouped in chunks of 12 characters. I would like to construct a multi-line key field from this data. For example: --- 123456789012123456789012... --- becomes --- 123456789012 123456789012 ... --- Can I do this with a calc field? If so, how? I'm stumped..

I was wondering if there was a standard term that most everyone uses for the following (or even if this is the most common way to handle the following): You need to create a relationship between two files where the match field in the master file needs to be the combination of two other fields in that master file. The match field in the related file is just one text field. For example: master::textfield1="foo" master::textfield2="bar" related::textfield1="foobar" I need a relationship (master::textfield1 + master::textfield2) --> related::textfield1. I almost always handle the above by creating a calculation field in the master file that is the concatenation of the two text fields. Thus: master::calcfield3=textfield1 & "." & textfield2 relationship master::calcfield3 --> related::textfield1 Is there a term for this sort of technique? I usually just call it a "join" but I'm not sure that's the correct term for that. Thanks in advance, Kyle