I have a question that probably wouldn't be necessary if I'd designed this db better from the start, but now I'm curious if there's a way around it, so here goes. Maybe someone out there has an answer.

I have a FMP 4.0 db with 250+ fields which receive one of three data entries (0, 1, or 2) via CDML tags over the Internet. I would like to sort & perform various calculation functions on their contents, but need a way to separate the 250+ fields into 6 different categories. (The fields represent different learning activities at different grade levels, but each is associated with one of six different learning strands....I want to calculate by strand, etc.)

So ideally, I'd like to identify which of the 250+ fields are strand 1, which are strand 2, etc., then use those designations to perform sorts and calculations.

Any ideas? Or is my question too confusing?

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Peter Knowles

Hi Peter,

I think you will get better help if you provide a bit more information:

What is the criteria that makes a field part of strand 1 as opposed to strand 2,3,4,5, or 6? Is it the data in the field that determines the strand, the field itself, some combination of both, or something else alltogether?

If it helps, you can use aggregate functions across fields in the same record:

sum(field1, field2, field3...)

-Raz

More explanation:

The fields (001, 002, 003, etc.) are part of a certain strand (1-6) by virtue of their definitions; for example, the skill "students can touch-type at 25 wpm" (represented by field 007, for example) is a "basic operation", and consequently strand 1. So no matter what field 007 contains (either 0, 1, or 2) it is always a strand 1 field. Likewise, the other 250 or so fields have their strands (1-6) defined by what they represent (student skills), not what they contains (0, 1, or 2). So if field 209, for example, is strand 2, it is always strand 2. What I'm hoping to do is to attach a designation for each field (001, 002, 003, etc.) that allows me to find all strand 2 fields, for example, and perform calculations on the found set.

I have created some calculation fields using the sum(field 1, field 2, etc.) and can do some of the calculations that way, but am limited in some of the flexibility I'm looking for.

Don't know if this information helps.

Peter Knowles

Would it help to rename the fields to somehow reflect their designation?

Even if that doesn't help you directly, it may trigger other ideas from other forum users.

cheers,

Wendy

Hi Peter,

To put my two cents worth in the pot, if you have one file with 250 fields, it looks to me like you have violated some basic rules of relational databases. I see that you did say you are using v4. I'm not familiar with its capabilities and limitations, but if at all possible, I suggest you consider restructuring.

Cass Moret