I'm using FM7, and if I need to upgrade to accomplish what I'd like to, please let me know.

I currently have a portal in a layout which displays information keying off an order number.

The portal information looks something like:

Supplier Cost Proceeds

KS $5 $10

RL $2 $15

JH $1 $5

KS $1 $8

I want to store the totals for each supplier inside the main layout that the portal is in.

The suppliers can change from order to order, and going through the order with a Find function hard coding the suppliers doesn't seem like a good way to do it, especially since my supplier list changes.

Is there a way to restrict the display (for the purposes of grabbing totals) by each supplier in my supplier list, or to key a find off both the order number and the supplier?

Or is there a function that will do what I'm trying to do, and I just don't know how to figure out what it's called?

I haven't been able to figure out how to restrict my results by more than one field.

Any information or advice on where to find more information would be greatly appreciated!

Can you allocate not yet purchases made by you, to new orders?

--sd

By adding another record to the portal table with the same order# it will add it. When I get to the point where I want to calculate the totals, no more records should be added. The order is basically complete at that point.

Thank you for your help. I managed to solve the problem by setting up a double-relationship, and then using a script to pull the information I needed.

To me does it seem like you might be giving the right answer to another question than mine, and when you writes this:

Thank you for your help. I managed to solve the problem by setting up a double-relationship, and then using a script to pull the information I needed.

...does it seem completely disconnected to my line of inquiry, what have you solved and why ... my notion of a transaction doesn't nessersarily require intervention of a script, and I can't help thinking that this is a fix of an inadequate structure. Please enlighten us of context and purpose, and ensure us that you're not getting away with something you'll regret later.

--sd

My main goal was to restrict the contents of a table by two variables so that I could get a numerical total for the contents of one of the other fields in that tables.

I only wanted records where Order# = X and Supplier = Y, so that I could see what the total cost of each supplier on each order.

Looping through the table and doing it with an IF statement took too long.

I wasn't able to figure out how to produce a Find set based on two field determined variables. For example I was able to search on structure::type = "House" but not on structure::type = client:building AND structure::year = client:date

Would still like to know how to find based on the value of another field.

My solution was to restrict the information in the table by using a double relationship, and then a SUM function. I'm still new at this and hadn't even thought it possible until I set up another file and just tried things.

I didn't quite understand your question to me, but wanted to thank you for your time and your effort to help me.

Ah it's semantic's here which are fooling me here, adding a criteria to a relationship would I call it, similar have variables a different meaning in filemaker.

but not on structure::type = client:building AND structure::year = client:date

This is called an omitted request which should work with another request for House as two adjacent requests.

The problem is relations could be exactly what is needed with an aggregate function over the relation, but it doesn't scale particular well.

Large sets should be established via either GTRR as you have chosen here or requests but the summing should be done with genuine summaries if the measure of data is of some size. As you will notice will I not be able to say where the threshold is when the aggregate can't keep pace with summaries.

Since summaries always require some sort of scripting anyways wouldn't I litter a relations graph which are going to be complex anyway.

Initially was the question to see if the structure included a entity duplication, or some other oddities. You can't really get precise answers if you tell next to nothing about context and purpose, and by it do I mean ... relational structure.

--sd