What is easier

[Heathbo]

Is it easier to have multiple tables with many different fields rather than having one table with all the fields in it. Making it look like its another table. I'm soo disgusted with the complexity of multiple relationships within FileMaker. I think FileMaker should automatically create a relationship between tables when you create a field that equals a field in the other table. I find having to draw graphs is redundant. And then what sucks even more is I can't have more than one relationship between the two tables without totally screwing up my previous relationship. I'm starting to wonder why I even chose to use this pathetic program.

[LiveOak]

Feel better? ;-)

You might want to go to the FileMaker web site and download a few of the whitepapers on FM7. Central to FM7 are the notions of Context and Table Occurrences. Mike Harris' paper is particularly useful. Separate Table Occurrences are how you can isolate the multiple relationships between tables and prevent inteference between these relationships. There really is no way FM could automatically create a relationship. How would FM know what to use as a key?

FM7 is a rather dramatic change from FM6. In giving FM7 greater capability, some of the ease of use for simple applications is lost and a greater knowledge of relational design is assumed.

-bd

[Fenton]

This is a joke, right -|

Seriously, I think you'll find (or maybe you won't) that FileMaker is the easiest relational database program there is. Yes, version 7 is a bit daunting at first. But that is mostly because it is more powerful than earlier versions. In many cases this power makes things simpler.

If you've used an earlier versions, you know that there were often many relationships between files (can be tables now). So there will likely be many Table Occurrences (TO) also; not as many. A TO is NOT a table, just as a relationship is not a file. It is more like an "alias" of its base table; with a relationship (which is in the white rectangle on the line) between two TOs.

It is, when you think about it, about the only way you can graphically represent what is going on. Many of us were flustered the first time we saw it, but it grows on you.

The relationship graph is a bit confusing at first. But it is actually simpler in some ways that earlier versions. The abililty to read "through" other TOs saves a lot of extra work. Basically you just follow the lines.

[LaRetta]

Hi Heathbo

"I can't have more than one relationship between the two tables without totally screwing up my previous relationship. "

Leave your original relationship in place. Create a second table occurence of it and create your new relationship - no need to touch your first one at all!

Which is easier - one table with all fields, or multiple tables? Flat files are easier initially but require a lot more work after that initial 'create the fields' phase. Things you can easily accomplish with relational are extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible, with flatfile structure. Is it just 7 you are frustrated with? It sounds like you don't understand the power of relational systems in general and would prefer a flatfile, like Act?

Take the time to learn the basics (and the boundless power) of relational theory. It eliminates godless amounts of redundant data; it allows flexibility and easy expansion; it provides reporting capabilities a flatfile can't begin to compete with.

When you *get* that concept and the light goes on ... you will be glad you stuck it out. And your frustration will disappear and be replaced with passion. Easy? No. Worth it? Absolutely. But you'll never know unless you stick it out long enough for that light to go on. If it sounds like I'm passionate about relational theory you are absolutely right. I've spent 30 years in administration - the last 20 working with various relational programs and it's much easier than flatfile. I guarantee it.

LaRetta

[transpower]

Heathbo:

You may want to get a copy of Using FileMaker 7 by Lane, et. al. It has a good discussion of relational database design using FileMaker's new Relationships Graph. Hang in there.

[Heathbo]

Thanks all, I was venting because what I thought would be a simple task has become a huge monster.

If I use a second occurence of a table, is it duplicating my table and all the records in it? If I add records to one occurence does it automatically update the other? How many occurences of the same table can you have?

[Fenton]

I think you're not understanding what a table occurrence (TO) is. As I said, it's somewhat like an "alias of a file," but for a FileMaker table. It's a pointer to the table, a special pointer, filtered by its relationship. As you know, you can have any number of aliases to a file. There are small; they are not the file itself. A new TO doesn't effect the records at all, just as creating a new alias to a file doesn't effect the file.

A relationship is much like a version 6 relationship, but is bi-directional (when it can be; ie., not with globals or unstored fields as keys), and is more flexible; it can have some other operators than just "="; can have ">, <, ?, ?, not equals, and "Cartesian" (which is just "everything").

Every TO belongs to a specific "base table" (table). The relationship from one TO to another can be between two base tables, or from a table to itself (self-relationship).

So you can have any number of them. When you add records, you are ON a specific layout. Every layout belongs to a specific TO, which belongs to a specific base table. So you are always adding records to the base table. You will always see the records of the base table.

It is possible to do some filtering tricks, primarily to do with portals, by assigning layouts to a "related" TO other than the plain old base table layout. But almost all of your layouts will be assigned to a plain base table TO; which FileMaker creates for you when you create a layout. In other words, in normal use, it's really not that complicated.

[Heathbo]

Thanks Fenton, I understand now. Thanks all for the reading tips. This is a great forum. Its one of the reasons I'm using Filemaker.