another script that should work easily....

[VICH]

...but i had to of mess up somewhere...

i have a looping script that goes all the way until a "next record, exit after last" command...it is supposed to cycle through about 10 feilds on each record and if hte script parameter is met it puts a X in that feild....but it only works on the first feild in the record when i know that more feilds met the script parameter

any help?

Edited November 1, 2005 by Guest

[sbg2]

Not enough to go on. We cant see the information in the original records, the Script Parameter definition or even the full script.

Have you considered setting a global field and using an unstored calculation instead of passing a Script Parameter? ex.

bids::calc_reportwoodi = If(estwoodi = MyGlobalField; "X")

[Ender]

What's the value of the Script Parameter? What's the values in each of the ten fields?

[VICH]

the origional information is 10 feilds that have a drop dop list of names and each name has a button and the button goes through and makes a shcedule report for that name showing only what was assinged to them.....

the report shows all records but only has "x"s in the ones relevant to chosen name button...and to test i set up every feild equal to the same name and hit the button for that name...and only the first field worked...

the script parameter on each button is one of hte names exapmple, button "steve" has a script paramter of "steve"...the paramter is compared to the "est" feilds which stands for estimator and is followed by what they are estimating, and the "report" feilds are what are in hte second image where the "x"s should be

i hope that makes it clearer

[Søren Dyhr]

the origional information is 10 feilds that have a drop dop list of names and each name has a button and the button goes through and makes a shcedule report for that name showing only what was assinged to them

Why 10 fields, doesn't seem to be adquately structured ...can you choose several names before hitting one of the next to buttons???

--sd

[VICH]

there are 10 field but 5 buttons....the list of names is the same fore each field and there are only 5 of them..sorry my wording was little off

[sbg2]

there are 10 field but 5 buttons....the list of names is the same fore each field and there are only 5 of them..sorry my wording was little off

A sample file would help, but then again I dont have FM8.

[VICH]

my file is alittle large at the moment....and i don't really want to put it all up because it would be too hard to navigate you to the specific problem...but would more screen shots help?

[Søren Dyhr]

but would more screen shots help?

Perhaps, give it a try!!!

--sd

[VICH]

input screen

this is hte input screen the 10 feilds i am talkign about are under the "estimator" heading. when the check box is checked a name is assigned to the estimator feild and those people click thier button at the top to see what has been assigned to them over all the records in the table. and it comes out in list form as a screen shot i posted im my first post as "record" and on the right of that list view there are the several small feilds..some with "X"s in them...now depending on what name you click those small feilds should be populated or cleared if the name in the estimator feild matches the chosen button.

[sbg2]

my file is alittle large at the moment....and i don't really want to put it all up because it would be too hard to navigate you to the specific problem...but would more screen shots help?

Can you create, from scratch, a mock-up database file containing the fields and tables that pertain to this issue? It doesn't have to be fancy or contain personal information.

[sbg2]

Attached is a stab in the dark at how you might have your file set-up and the list view you are trying to get.

Example.zip

[Søren Dyhr]

Well it seems like your filestructure is flat as a pancake?? I did instead of your looping use the relations definitions extensively in the attached template.

Be warned it's not an easy template to understand! I could have led you to a remedy to your problem - but such a solution would be half hearted, because it teaches you nothing!

Since you will run it on FM8 couldn't I stand the temptation to exploit the matching feature for GTRR(SO) ...since heavy scripting usually indicates an inadequate relational structure.

What I use is "Tiered Tables" ...which I in this case will think, makes minimum redundancy and hogs minimum storage. Due to the null values unused keys makes.

Well the solution here might seem byzantine, and simpler fixes do exists to your problem, but how does it scale compared to a genuine relational structure??? The bad thing that can happen is that you use the solution I here give you without considering the reasoning behind.

--sd

Timber.zip

[VICH]

sbg2...your stab in the dark is exactly what i am trying to do....i guess my descriptions weren't toooooo bad but there is no access to your example so i can't really break it down to see what you did.

thank everyone though for helping SD's example was close but i don't see how it works either....

[sbg2]

Log In as "Admin", no password.

or try this other one with the guest account active (no password).

Example2.zip

[Søren Dyhr]

SD's example was close but i don't see how it works either....

Is it cognitive or is there other impediments??? I can easily open and investigate sbg2's file and watch the inner workings as such ...mine should be just as open to say the least (no passwords etc.)

What could be said about sbg2's file is if you wish to search in one of the X'es - doesn't it scale well, due to the global field it's based on ...and providing stuff for eyeballing might be fun but not really a database task.

Give it a try, make 40000 jobs, and make a search for Cindy where Cindy's name only occurs somewhere on 100 of the jobs.

What a database's mission is, is not to arrange things but merely to make data into information ...that means to leave out the boring and tedious bits and pieces of nice to know's from the need to know's. Given my example will you have to browse thru 39900 records containing irrelevant data.

How would you single out, only the records where Cindy participate in without making searches in an unstored field ...that unfortunately can't be made indexed due to it's reference to the global field.

By the way, could you turn X'es on and off in my solution if you wish, the data is there already!

--sd

[VICH]

i don't know if i missed the log in or what maybe i have a messed up setting but when ever i open sample files it tells me that it can't be editied or i have no access...is there a way i can trigger a relogin so that i can get in as an admin

[sbg2]

Give it a try, make 40000 jobs, and make a search for Cindy where Cindy's name only occurs somewhere on 100 of the jobs.

80,000+ jobs, Cindy in 128 places for Windows

4 seconds - Find for Cindy on Bids Layout Windows_Estimator Drop Down field.

7 seconds - Find for Cindy and X in Windows Checkbox on Bid_Estimator pop-up list view layout.

I'm running on a 1.2Ghz machine with 256MB RAM and 10 other windows open.

[VICH]

how did you guys come up with that many records?

[sbg2]

I created a loop to duplicate the last record and an Exit Loop at > 80,000 records

[sbg2]

i don't know if i missed the log in or what maybe i have a messed up setting but when ever i open sample files it tells me that it can't be editied or i have no access...is there a way i can trigger a relogin so that i can get in as an admin

Open the file the under File>File Options log in as admin.

[VICH]

thanks for the tip

[Søren Dyhr]

Ok! the indexes isn't the most complicated around , but why waste processing power unnessersaily, say you renders something with gaussian blur in Photoshop at the same time???

--sd

[sbg2]

Ok! the indexes isn't the most complicated around , but why waste processing power unnessersaily, say you renders something with gaussian blur in Photoshop at the same time???

Funny you should mention that... at the time of performing the searches I had open:

- Full Filemaker database for the business I work at (about 15MB)

- MS Outlook (back-up file is 200MB)

- Corel Photopaint with 2 medium resolution images (9.5MB each), with masks, paths and up to 30 levels of undo available.

- 3 internet windows

- Plus a few other windows open

The point being I am not running a start of the art system with a lot of RAM and I was using the system hard at the time I was performing the search in FileMaker. Despite this the search, for my needs and I assume most small business offices, was performed fast enough.

I don't know how that translates to VICH's needs, but I'm a firm believer in "if aint broke, dont fix it". I certaintly agree the DB is better set-up as at least 2 different tables but for me I'm in a position where my Job Duties include:

- The IT department

- Sales

- Logistics

- Production

- Administrative

- Database Management

- Marketing

- Graphic Design

- Customer Service

and a whole slew of other fancy names. The point being, what can I make work efficiently enough and dependably in a short amount of time? That is usually what I am up against, this doesnt always lend itself to "how can I streamline our existing database". It usually comes down to how can I make this function work right now?

[Søren Dyhr]

The point being, what can I make work efficiently enough and dependably in a short amount of time?

We should distinguise between being penny-wise from pound-foolish, the "don't-fix..." might be much more expensive to replace when they're worn out.

Lets reveal here, that a good design methodology exsists to prevent you from missteps and design reiterations.

It's pound-foolish to waste time on arbitrary trial-and-error developement, simply because the "don't-fix..." lacks logic approaches ...and relies entirely on hunches, hunches that easily can be disturbed by phone calls from the wife informing you that's you turn to fetch your child ill at the kindergarden.

There is a big problem with the flat learningcurve filemaker exhibits, newbees rush to the machinery almost like the Alan Jackson tune "Drive" euphorically forgetting all about the blueprinting process.

--sd

[sbg2]

We should distinguish between being penny-wise from pound-foolish, the "don't-fix..." might be much more expensive to replace when they're worn out.

The operative word is MIGHT. Assess the situation and come to an informed decision. I have seen many companies waste a lot of money and resources on making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no one right answer, ask 100 programmers for a solution and you will get 100 different answers. One answer will most likely not be best for every different situation.

About 18 months ago we had one of our bigger distributor’s demand that we comply to a new product identification specification. This required about 60 hours of my time to comply and was required of all the vendors that supplied this distributor. The system would be an online database system. Fast Forward to 6 months later and the program had still not been put into place because the distributor is not ready (still is not in place a year later). In the mean time each vendor had to subscribe to an online service that costs between $120-$200/month plus individual charges for each item added. They made a mountain out of a molehill and its costing everybody a lot of money. It wasn’t broke, they tried to fix it, wrong choice.

Our other distributors send us forms in Spreadsheet format. While I view this as an atrocity and surely something that belongs in database format, it certainly costs us less to fill out a few forms a year rather than the $120-$200/month it costs to use the non-functioning system.

[Søren Dyhr]

I have seen many companies waste a lot of money and resources on making a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh yes, these thing occures in my neck of the woods as well, but it hasn't much to do with developer skills, but instead the leadership of the entire process af getting from a to b ...especially goverment contracts seems ridden by such artifacts.

The reason why, political desided tasks go rooten, is in my opinion that, there's lacking or overdoing something in between the strategical and the operative layer....

Read page 27 "Watch out for Gotchas" and page 30 "Don’t Let the Client Design the Project" in David Kaschels whitepaper:

http://www.codemastersworkshop.com/Downloads/WhitePaperForFMPNovices.pdf

It's an old known issue:

King Philip II (Alexander the Great's father) once stated a lion leading an army of sheep is more fearsome than a sheep leading an army of lions. He realized a strong general could make the weakest army strong, and a weak general could make the strongest army weak. The organization's energy and attitudes are drawn directly from the leader, for he or she is at the front where it is most visible.

--sd