The 'X' operator vs Un related tables.

[JerrySalem]

There is something I don't quite understand about the x operator. Why do I need to define two fields to relate using an operator that specifies don't bother compairing the fields? (I already understand the 'parents' answer to this. Do it this way because this is the way you have to do it!')

Does it ever matter what two fields you use in the relationship? For that matter why do you even need a relationship, couldn't you use a non related table. (Again the 'parent' answer applies here.)

Any guru's explain this? It seems like a doubious advantage over including a 'constant' field in each table like in previous versions of FMP.

TIA

Jerry

[comment]

It doesn't matter which fields you use. In fact, you can delete the fields AFTER creating the relationship, and the relationship will remain (looks kinda cool in the graph).

I don't know what the 'parent' answer is, but no - you couldn't use a non-related table instead. If you could, then you wouldn't need a relationship. You cannot see records from a non-related table in a portal. You cannot refer to fields from a non-related table in calculations (except globals). And so on.

[JerrySalem]

The 'Parent' answer was my attempt at humor.

Has a parent ever said to you, or you said to a kid;

"You do it this way, because I told you so!"

Jerry

[CyborgSam]

In fact, you can delete the fields AFTER creating the relationship, and the relationship will remain (looks kinda cool in the graph).

I'm probably a moron, but it's not obvious to me how to do this... Please explain. TIA

[comment]

I am not sure what is there to explain.

Define a field Dummy in TableA.

Define a field Dummy in TableB.

Define a relationship:

TableA::Dummy x TableB::Dummy

Now delete the field Dummy in both tables (overriding the warning).

[JerrySalem]

Is that just a FM trick or is there a (good) reason to delete the fields in each table?

Jerry

[comment]

It helps to see that the relationship is not depending on any particular field. Whether that is a good reason is a matter of opinion. The relationship will work either way.

[CyborgSam]

Aha! I had interpreted it to mean that the fields were deleted from the relationship in the relationship graph, not the actual field in the table. Hopefully this elevates me from moron to idiot

Could updates to FileMaker break this behavior? Has FileMaker strictly defined the behavior of broken relationships?