Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Why won't this work?

Recommended Posts

Essentially I have a calculation field with the calculation below on it.

Def, Aver A1, and Aver A2 are all number fields with values in them.

What I want to happen is when ((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = 3

I want the number 100 to show up in the field.

Is there an easier way of doing this?

Am I going about this all wrong?

Case (((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "3"; "100";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "4"; "99.54";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "5"; "98.15";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "6"; "95.37";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "7"; "90.74";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "8"; "83.80";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "9"; "74.08";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "10"; "62.51";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "11"; "50.0";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "12"; "37.51";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "13"; "25.94";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "14"; "16.22";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "15"; "9.28";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "16"; "4.65";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "17"; "1.87";

((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2)) / 2 = "18"; ".48";"")

Any help you can give me is greatly appreciated


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of the result you are looking for. It appears that Aver might stand for average and you seem to be hard-coding percentages; but I won't try to guess. I'm no mathematician but I would think FM could do this for you? smile.gif

I certainly see the patterns, however. I think you can (substantially) increase its efficiency. I wish I had your real numbers to plug in for testing but I'll leave that up to you. You should be able to copy/paste this calc as I matched your field names exactly:

Choose(Div((Def - Aver A1) + (Def - Aver A2) ; 2) - 3 ;

100; 99.54; 98.15; 95.37; 90.74; 83.8; 74.08; 62.51; 50; 37.51; 25.94; 16.22; 9.28; 4.65; 1.87; .48)

Bottom line - if all three numbers are the same (regardless of the number size) it will equal 100 if this is what you need. Are we moving you closer? wink.gif

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind I figured it out. I forgot about the decimal. By adding a round command it fixes it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone that is interested in efficiency, the comparisons between these two calculations is significant.

Case( x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3, x4, y4, ... )

1) Solve expression x1

a) It was true: solve and return y1

B) It was false: Solve: Case( x2, y2, x3, y3, ... )

- Solve expression x2

A) It was true: solve and return y2

B) It was false: Solve, Case( x3, y3, ... )


Choose( n, y0, y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, ... )

1) Solve n to a number

2) Solve and return y[n]

If I understand correctly, the first calculation might take 32 (or 48) evaluations (?) whereas the second will always take only 2. But with FM7, Case() will short-circuit so accurately counting the calls isn't possible, is it? Case() stops when it hits the first true, so we can only say it would require up to a certain number. But I still think a comparison is important.

Can any math wizards help me count the potential evaluations in that Case()? I want to further learn how to read this so I can structure my thinking accordingly. I have a sneaky suspicion that, depending upon whether one utilized branch prediction, the data will skew the counts. In prior versions, Case() had to evaluate the entire calculation every time so it was black and white. Input on this concept would be appreciated. smile.gif

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Tony Morosco
      I'm a botanist, and the tables I am working with are for tracking botanical garden collections. The data represents plants in the garden, and the plants are tagged and show up in the database.  The tables I am working with were created in FMP 7, and I'd like to open them up in FMP 11 (or later.)  The system hasn't been used in years, but still has valuable information.
      One of the tables is giving me problems using the FMP convert and recover commands.
      These tables are all inter-related.  The main table is the Accessions table, which contains records for all of one kind of plant, from the same source, received on the same date.  It is basically a museum standard.
      The other tables are related to each other through this one main table.  The Species table is related to the locations table through the Accessions table. 
      (i.e.  table A relates to table C through the table B, the intermediary)  
      From the Locations table, we can't see the the species information unless the accessions table is present.
      When issuing the open command on the main table to convert the database to FMP 11, I get the message:
      "Accessions.fmp7" is damaged and cannot be opened.  Use the Recover command to recover this file. When using the Recover command from v. 11, I get another message:
      WARNING: problems were detected while recovering the database.  Please review the Recover.log file to see where problems were found and their severity.  The recovered file should NOT be used going forward; copy only the most recent work from it into a backup copy of the original file. Recovery results:   File blocks: scanned and rebuilt 563 blocks, dropped 214 invalid data blocks.   Schema: scanned fields and tables, 1 items modified   Structure: scanned; 1 items modified   Field indexes: rebuilt  
      Opening the recovered database, there are only three records present.  There should be hundreds.  So obviously I am looking on how to wrangle this database open.
      I've attached the log file here, as well as the database structure map.  
      The other files have converted just fine.  But since the main table won't open, we are kind of stuck.
      I can share the files with you through Dropbox or whatever, if needed.
      Please let me know any thoughts you have, either basic or advanced.  And ask for any clarifications or additional questions.   :-)  

    • By Tumma K
      Hello, All!

      I am an aspiring developer for Filemaker. The company I work with is stuck in the past working off of Filemaker Pro 4.1

      I was given the task of bringing us up to Filemaker Pro/Server 13. So far my conversion prototypes are successful but we recently had a layout issue that can only be fixed in versions 3-6 (as the file is an .fp3) I work off of a macbook while our network is all Windows 7. In order for me to repair the layouts without tampering our active database, I decided the best option is to repair a copy of our solutions off the network. Unfortunately, when I go to download the trial version of Filemaker Pro 6 off of the respected website, the file is corrupt! I've tried multiple times, with different extraction apps and in different directories.

      My question is;

      Does anyone know a place where I could obtain version 6 (or better yet, 4.0) for an OSX computer? I've looked everywhere!
      Thank you for your time,
      Tumma K.
    • By MrEddByrnes
      I'm hoping my question can have a happy ending. In the mid-90's, I purchased Filemaker 3. When Filemaker 5.5 Pro was released, I bought the update CD, which requires the user to either have FM 3 installed or to have the installation CD for FM 3. I've used it all these years, most recently with Windows XP Pro, and it has worked just fine. The databases I began with were long ago converted to FM Pro 5.5 databases.
      I'm still using FM Pro 5.5 on a laptop with WinXP Pro, but in 2013, I purchased a PC with Windows 8. I haven't been able to install FM 3 on it, therefore can't install FM Pro 5.5. I am retired and rarely use Filemaker, but I have a few Filemaker databases I'd like to add to my Win 8 machine. I don't feel it's worth upgrading FM for the sake of using a couple of databases.
      Has anyone else run into this situation and/or have a (possible) solution? Is there perhaps any other software that can read FM 5.5 databases? Thanks in advance for your help.
    • By bmill
      I am using a custom filemaker solution for medical office billing written with fp5 running on a mac with snow leopard. In addition, I have a patient management db (which I wrote) that is linked through pt. ID number to the billing program allowing transfer of some demographic information (name, DOB, etc).
      Other than being limited by hardware restrictions, the billing program serves our needs for now and upgrading to fp12 will take some time (and money).  In the meantime, I am upgrading my pt. management program to fp13 and would like to move new patient demographic information from the billing program ( fp5 running on snow leopard through Parallels) and the new pt management program ( fp13 running on OS X 10.9) on the same mac.   
      Ideally, demographic information would be entered once into fp5 and then a scipt would make the data available for fp13.
      Any ideas on how to make this work?
    • By randyinla
      Hi, can anyone tell me why my on-line database might have stopped allowing me to delete records?  All of my access privileges and passwords are correct.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.