table size

[hassam36]

Hello

I am building an application that contains a table with 113 fields in it, however, of these, 60 are calculation fields used to summarize data from various child tables.

The layout this table is used on does load slightly slower than other layouts, however, it is not really an issue.

My question is I need to add another 10-15 calc. fields to this table and am wondering if it already is way too big? Does anyone have a table similar in size and makeup as this and if so, have you run into performance issues when there it contains significant data and is actually used?

Joe

[mr_vodka]

It shouldnt really effect your performance too much unless you have them all on your layout or you are performing an action to cause those calcs to refresh.

[hassam36]

Thanks. Several of calc. fields are on one form actually, but not all. But nothing is really refreshing all of them once the layout has loaded.

Joe

[mr_vodka]

Are they unstored? Do they reference related data? We need more specific info.

[hassam36]

None are stored, but all the data they reference is from related child tables.

[bruceR]

Hello

I am building an application that contains a table with 113 fields in it, however, of these, 60 are calculation fields used to summarize data from various child tables.

The layout this table is used on does load slightly slower than other layouts, however, it is not really an issue.

My question is I need to add another 10-15 calc. fields to this table and am wondering if it already is way too big? Does anyone have a table similar in size and makeup as this and if so, have you run into performance issues when there it contains significant data and is actually used?

Joe

More detail would be helpful, either in the form of an example or more detailed description. I've seen files with much larger count of calc fields but the real question is the underlying design and intention of what you are trying to accomplish.

[Fenton]

Another little tip, from Jimmy Jones (long ago), was that unstored calculations are faster if they are dealing more directly with the data.

calc_field_1 = some relational calculations

calc_field_2 = other relational calculations

For calc_field_3 one is tempted to do:

calc_field_1 + calc_field_2

But it is actually faster for FileMaker to do:

some relational calculations + other relational calculations

How much difference depends on the number and complexity of the calculations. One technique is to do it the easy way at first, until one is sure you've got it right. Then go thru and replace with the more direct calculations (which are in the original calculation fields). Remember to comment the calculations internally, as the latter method is not self-documenting.