Export related tables

[genevieve charbon]

Hi,

I've Table1 and Table2

Table1 contains

Ref Key

AAA T1

BBB T1

CCC T2

Table2 contains

Key Att1 Att2 Att3

T1 A1 A2 A3

T2 B1 B2 B3

T3 C1 C2 C3

I want to do an export from table2 that woud look like that

AAA T1 A1 A2 A3

AAA T2 B1 B2 B3

AAA T3 C1 C2 C3

BBB T1 A1 A2 A3

BBB T2 B1 B2 B3

BBB T3 C1 C2 C3

CCC T1 A1 A2 A3

CCC T2 B1 B2 B3

CCC T3 C1 C2 C3

Yes, I know that it will generate more lines that I have in B, but that's what I want.

So I've made a relationship ≠ (cardinal relationship) between the field key of ftable1 and Table2.

I export frrom table2

But I only get

AAA T1 A1 A2 A3

BBB

CCC

AAA T2 B1 B2 B3

BBB

CCC

AAA T3 C1 C2 C3

BBB

CCC

I export as tab tab return. With xml it seesm to work the way I wan't to, but I need the resulting file to be tab tab return.

Thanks

[comment]

With xml it seesm to work the way I wan't to, but I need the resulting file to be tab tab return.

You can transform the exported XML to tab-separated text, using a XSL stylesheet. There may be another way, but I am afraid the above sentence is the only thing in your post I understood.

[Fenton]

I concur. It seems to me that you're trying to get an export that has all of one table combined with all of another table. In which case the first obvious solution would be create a join table and populate it with the combinations. Then it's easy to export. Otherwise I also don't see what the relationship between one table and the other is; because the key you specified, "AAA", etc., does not match anything in the other, at least not that you've told us.

[genevieve charbon]

Well exactly fenton, I want to have all the combination (one way), as I get them with the tab tab return.

I just wished that filemaker, rathr than displayion void values would repeat the value for each line.

Since it seems to me you're an xsl expert, I thought maybe that's doable with a particular xsl file

what do you think ?

Thanks

[Fenton]

I believe it could be done. But you must say more clearly what your relationship is. The data you've posted compared to what you want doesn't look like you have a relationship at all; it just looks like "all of one table, and all unique combinations of it and the other table"

If the two of use who've looked at don't know what you mean, it's safe to say that it is not clear.

What is the FileMaker relationship, if any? It looks like the AAA record with T1 only matches the other table once. So why would you want the other 2 lines?

[genevieve charbon]

Ok,

The system is for generating product images for the web.

I've a table that contains products sku, and their associated images.

Each products have different images and formats according to their location on the website. So for a product I've 80*100 / 200*260 pixel imahges,gif, jpeg, gif with transparent background.

usually, it's the same original image processed differently.

BUT, now i'm expading the image quantity. So a product can have different looking images according to the location on the website.

So That means that the source image for the 80*100 would be different than the 200*260.

Hence my structure

Product to image table

SKU1 ImageA Type1

SKU1 ImageB Type2

SKU2 ImageC Type1

and then

Imagetype-table

Type1 80*100 gif

Type2 200*260 jpeg

Everything is ok as long as you attribute as much original image in the Product to image table as there's images type.

But for the most products there's only one original image, and I don't want my user to specify it as musch as there's image types.

I only want my user to specify a different source image if necessary.

As all images types are mandatory for the website, I need to render them even if there's only one record in the Product to image table.

Processing is done tab tab return with an export that's is processed by an applescript. The exported file should look like

SKU1 ImageA 80*100 gif

SKU1 ImageB 200*260 jpeg

SKU2 ImageC 80*100 gif

SKU2 ImageC 200*260 jpeg

so all types would be created even for SKU2

Now you know everything :-)

[genevieve charbon]

Any solutions ?