Rob Tito

hello Due to a flaw in the design of a database - one field I never ever expected people to use to search in - I had to index that particular field (being the only NOT indexed field) The table contains some 4 million recprds. Indexing that one field took me about 3 days, as in 72 hours. YET About 1 hour short of finishing - yup Murphy struck: MAC OS X 10.4.6 totally froze. Corrupted the filesystem of one of my hard disks so that took another two days to get restored again. Now my question: You can either export the field or table to another database and then import it while setting indexing on input on. That however will take somewhat like another three days, and even though I can duck Murophy hits when least expected. Are there accelerators for indexing? Or is there a safer way to do it, maybe partwise or such. Well any serious increase in sopeed will be greatly appreciated. TIA Rob

I didn't mention frequency, I only noted that when you experience a kernel panic aka core dump it renders you in the majority of the cases with a corrupted database. Only option left then according to opening the file again in filemaker is recover. Well that doesnt work too wel if not not at all. That was where my remark was about. Rob

Somehow that rang a bell, on MAC it seems sometimes people deleted fonts like geneva, chicago, helvetica, monaco and I remember vaguely one of these oldies are the buggers. Anyone a clue which one?? TIA Rob

Even as root user the data of the app produced on a ppc and the application itself wouldnt launch it only showed one jump in the dock and that was all The same data from a cd-rom installed on a G4/G3/Mini all worked instantly. Even changing permissions didnt change a thing, who has a clue here? Is the intel hardware the problem? TIA Rob

I am sorry for not being clear there, it is a runtime application created by FMP 8 Adv on a MAC PPC that doesnt seem to start on a MacTel machine It should function according to what I know. But then that might be wrong. Any info appreciated Rob

Hello List I have an app created by FMP 8 advanced, it works great on all PPC Macs (10.4.5) yet trying ot launch it on a MacTel iMac it fails to start up. I thought the Apps generated by FMP would work on the MacTels, or did I miss something? Any info greatly appreciated, thanks Rob

Hi All. Sometimes when running FMP and your system crashes it leaves you with a corrupted database. When the faults aren't severe you get the "checking for unused blocks" window the next time you try to startup the database. For a file of around 50 GB that will take about one hour so thats pretty much ok. (It takes longer to restore a backup of the file) If the errors are more profound you are prompted to RECOVER the file. Now here is where the sh*t starts. In my notion any databasefile extending about 2-3 GB trying to recover from a crash results in an "unable to recover" message. So far I have circumvened this by keeping some backup copies of the database and refresh them daily. Nw the question: what is your experience with this phenomenon. I stopped using recover for large (>2 GB) databases since version 4 or so. Recovering 4-10 GB takes about 24 hours and end up messaging you: unable to recover file - thus a waste of time. What are your impressions and experiences with database crashes? TIA Rob

that was what I was missing, in prior versions calculated fields were unstored untill told to store thanks this works Rob

the fields I use ARE calculation fields, they use to work in 3-4-5-6- and 7 now there is something different and I wonder what I missed

hello All I am trying to get the difference for the two Get flags: Get(FoundCount) and Get(TotalRecordCount) When I use them, even after a find operation returning 3 records they both give me the same number i.e. the total number of records in the table. What am I missing here? Thanks for any insight. TIA Rob

It does have a use, I just want to implement that use.

suppose the table is used to trigger a script into going to perform a certain script step in the activated script to do just the informatiomn on e.g. a field in that single record. You would just need one record and not two so why accidentally allow for a nitwit record to come into existence. This is kind of used up from the '80s and I still find some aspects handy.

hello All It is possible to piut constraints on found sets in a table that is part of a database. I never found any help files or indications how to constrain a table to let it contain only one field, no less and no more. In a project I am working on using FMP 8 Adv this is an option that would come in handy. Any help out there?? TIA Rob

The file replacement is my standard action ever since FM 1. In 5 and 6 the filesize was limited to 2 GB and crossing that limit did pose problems without FM being able to cope with it, Recover seemed unable to help out there. Since I noticed the recovery tools were rather meant for small databases I fled away from them since they had no real use: they simply didnot work or after over 24 hours of working a message: recovery failed. Thanks did I wait over 1 day for that message? Not likely. Ever since that emssage popped up I keep at least a double backup of the databases I use intensively. Right now this large database nearing 7 Mrec has a backup in a Retrospect tape and two bloody copies on two different disks. The file size is right now over 47 GB, and due to the really great indexing technology deployed by FM it is as fast as if there were only one million records present. I must honor Filemaker Inc there, they did a great job by implementing the Rushmore technology into the database. I wonder who else has experiences with large FM-databases and what are their experiences? This database will be published on line when the target of 10 Mrec is reached, amounting to some 55-60 GB of data. Hope to hear from anyone about large FM databases Regards Rob

Hi Forum I have a FMP 8 Database containing 6.7 million records, about 46 GB of space using MAC OS X (10.4.5). I recently had a power failure while I was importing records from an external source. Normally due to the size I replace the fault/corrupted database by its latest back-up and redo the action, leaving me with the least influence in lost records and so on. This time I chose to let it "look for unused space" It went through without needing to recover the database (nearly impossible on the size and failure is nearly guaranteed). After completion it started up again yet to my amasement in stead of the 6.7 million records I found out the process deleted some 1.3 million records for no apparent reason. Is anybody familiar with this rather fuzzy behavior and give me some causalities and sources or insight on what might be the reason for this rather distressing behavior. And no, no records have been deleted only added. TIA Rob