Ooklamok Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 I apologize if this has been asked before, but a search didn't reveal what I am looking for. I have two tables related by calculation fields, and it doesn't seem to be working as I think it should. Here is my setup (from a database used to test this issue) Table - View Input - Global, text IsThereInput - Calc, if (View::Input<>"";1;2) Table - Data IsThereInput - Calc, if (View::Input<>"";1;0) Value - Auto Enter Serial -------------- The tables are related by View::IsThereInput = Data::IsThereInput I have a portal on the View side that should show the value field of all related records. I input some text into the Input field, see that IsThereInput has indeed updated on both tables and they both are "1", but no records show up in the portal. Any ideas? Thanks, -Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comment Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 The calculation field on the "many" side (your Data table) must be stored. It cannot be stored in your case, since it references both a global and a related field (each one of those would be enough to disqualify it from serving as a matchfield). If you explain what you're actually trying to achieve, perhaps another way may be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooklamok Posted October 9, 2007 Author Share Posted October 9, 2007 Thanks for the reply. What I'm trying to create is a portal filter. I used the example to hopefully simplify the issue. In my "real" database I have (basically) the following: Table - View Filter, Global, text IsFilterOn, Calc, if(filter<>"";1;0) Table - Data Name, text CaughtByFilter, Calc, PatternCount ( Name ; View::filter ) IsFilterCatchOn, Calc, if(CaughtByFilter>0;1;0) ---------- The relationship is view::IsFilterOn = data::IsFilterCatchOn Basically, if a value is typed into view::Filter, view::IsFilterOn returns a 1. If that value matches part of data::name, data::IsFilterCatchOn returns a 1. If nothing is in view::Filter, the two related fields equal 0. The values are updating correctly, but the records that match do not show up in the portal. See any way around this? Thanks! -Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comment Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 A practical example would be useful, I think. As I understand now, you're trying to base the relationship on the results of a pattern count calculation. Is it really necessary to get to this level of detail, i.e. user enters "cat" in the global Filter field and expects to find "catalog", "muscat" and "dogcatcher" in the portal? If this is indeed what you need, you may want to look at this thread: http://www.fmforums.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/190559 However, I suspect such technique might prove too slow for this type of implementation. This is really a job for find, nor a relationship. See also here: http://www.fmforums.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/184430 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooklamok Posted October 9, 2007 Author Share Posted October 9, 2007 Your example is exactly what I am doing. "cat" would catch "bobcat", "catherine", etc... Thank you for the suggestions. I have come up with a method that works for my database (will always be less than 1500 records) Table - Data filter, text filtercatch, indexed, If (filter = "";1;If (PatternCount ( Name ; filter )>0;1;0)) Table - View filter, text zeroconstant, number ------------- Relationship is data::filtercatch > view::zeroconstant On the view screen, I have a field assigned to view::filter. I type in that field then kick off a script that sets data::filter = view::filter on all records. Because this is a small database, this only takes about 3-4 seconds. Then, voilà! Filtered results! Not the best method, bit it works for me. This is for one of the databases I have created to track stats in the D&D game I run. This database is for equipment. Thanks for all the help! I learned a lot about relationships today (my wife will be thrilled!) -Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comment Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Not the best method No, it is not. Just to warn other readers away from it, it is limited to a single user. And if you're running a script anyway, why not find? Not that a find for *cat* will be particularly fast, but I think it may be faster than this. Another method that may be relevant here is using a custom function to calculate an exploded field on the data side, where "bobcat", for example, returns something like: bo ob bc ca at bob obc bca cat bobc obca bcat bobca obcat bobcat This calculation can be stored, and used as a matchfield opposite your Filter entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 6178 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now