Stacked Tables?

[K1200]

Is it possible to define such a thing as stacked tables in FileMaker?

I have three tables in my application that have exactly the same fields defined for each of them. Each table has a fixed number of records so management of new records is not required. They were designed this way because they are accessed often and I wanted an absolute minimum of runtime overhead. In other words, I didn't want to define a Table::Type field with a join relationship and have FileMaker resolve the members of the set at runtime. I just wanted the tables to be there.

As a simplification step, I would now like to define a BaseTable that has the necessary fields defined in it and then have the other tables defined as "segments" of that base table:

TableA = BaseTable[records 1 -- 100]

TableB = BaseTable[records 101 -- 200]

TableC = BaseTable[records 201 -- 300]

One advantage is that I will be able to export all information held in all the tables by exporting only the base table. I will also be able to easily add a TableD, if ever needed.

Is there a way to define this kind of static relationship based on absolute record numbers?(as opposed to a dynamic one that is resolved at runtime)? Or is using a Type field with a join the only way?

Thanks in advance for any assistance,

[Greg G]

Have you tried to just assign a unique serial number to each grouping in the "Basetable" and create a relationship to Tables A, B and C via that number?

Relationships are always dynamic in the sense that FMP will continue to look at these connections. Maybe i'm not understanding your question but unless the respecive records actually exist in Tables A, B, and C you will need a relationship linking them to the Basetable

[K1200]

Thanks for your response.

My assumption has always been that using a serial number match -- or matching on a range of serial numbers -- would still require FileMaker to "calculate" which records are associated with each table at runtime. What I'm hoping for is what might be described as a "static pointer approach" that simply says "TableA starts here and consists of the next 100 sequential records". In others words, a way to segment a table.

[Greg G]

Your right. But there is only one type of relationship and it is always active. As far as I know there is no way to make a "Static" pointer like you want. You only have two options, either do the relationship thing or split up the records into Tables A, B and C accordingly.

I don't know how many records you are talkng about but I can not imagine that you will have any performance issues with the relationship method. If you give more info on what you are trying to do maybe we can suggest a better approach.

[K1200]

Thanks for the confirming what I was afraid might be the case:

there is only one type of relationship and it is always active . . . there is no way to make a "Static" pointer like you want

I will make do, of course. This is not the first time I've encountered a case where a rather simple and useful construct has been overlooked by the software engineers. Oh well.

[Lee Smith]

Why not share your ERD with us? Maybe there is a way to do what you want.

Lee