Hello together,

I notice a very strange behavior of Filemaker Pro 8.5 - or maybe I´m doing things I must not do:

I store the user preferences in my solution in an own table. In this table every user has its own number. In the main table I define a global stored number field which containes the number of the current user. The relation between main- and user-table is defined over the global stored number (current) and the number of the user.

When I try to access fields in the user-table the performance ist really bad. Especial over the Network I get the spinning wheel very often. Why is that like this? Is there an other way to work with user-defined values than over a global stored field?

Thank you for every hint,

florian

The using a remote solution, globals that are required are shipped back from the client to the host on demand when they are used in finds and joins.

This is likely the cause of your perfomance issues. If you can modify your solution to not use globals - perhaps by having a table with one-row for each user I would think you could avoid this slowdown.

Hi,

thanks for your answer. I have a table with one row for each user. But somewhere I have to use a global to set the current user, or am I wrong?

It should work like this:

UserNo (global) --relation-- > UserNr (number)

WorkingData UserData

Just a thought here, I haven't tried setting up a solution like this.

You could use the user-table as the starting point for your layouts that need to join based on user-info, so you would move to your user record, then stay on it as the current record the whole while you're using that layout.

Hope this makes sense.

Hi,

I think this could work. I also have to think about it a bit, because it means a lot of rebuilding work.

Anyway, thanks a lot!

florian

Hi, it makes me crazy.

Im not in a network, and a relation with a calculated field which use a global field does not work, coz it cant be indexed

...so Ive tried to use a new table with a single row instead of global field

but it does not work, coz related field cant be index!!!

Edited December 28, 200619 yr by Guest