File or table relationship?

[Rafa]

Hi:

¿Which is better, a solution with 20 related files, or a file with 20 related tables?

I'd appreciate an advice on it.

Tks.

[Ender]

Generally it's simpler to design with fewer files. In some cases separate files makes sense, like with a converted solution (FM5/6), when you're selling or building the solution in phases (each file being a module), or with very large data sets (maintenance is easier when you only have to do the parts that need it).

[Rafa]

¿And what about sending it to the web? ¿Is any of them in disadvantage?

[Fenton]

If by "sending to the web" you mean FileMaker Web Publishing, then there is a great advantage to only 1, or a very small number of files. FileMaker hosting companies charge more for a larger number of files. They have different pricing structures, but generally if you have more than 3 you'll have to pay more.

The general rule is the less files the better, with exceptions for such things as files with largish graphics, and for extremely complex solutions. In which case a few files may be easier to handle; each file being a "module," with interrelated tables and scripts. There are no absolute rules for this, as FileMaker allows quite a bit of abstraction.

The main downside to putting it all in one file, from my point of view, is that the scripts list gets awful long. I really hope that FileMaker gives us folders in that menu someday. Lots of layouts are not a lot of fun either. A huge Relationship Graph is awkward, though a large monitor and a proper TOG (table occurrence groups) design keeps it manageable. You absolutely must use a good naming convention for everything, if you expect to remain sane -]

[Rafa]

Thank you very much, gentlemen, I'll follow your valuable advices.