Portal Filtering

[Heathbo]

How do you show a found set in a portal? I have a very simple 1 to many relationship.

[bcooney]

Do you know how to do a filtered portal?

Perhaps you're thinking about something along these lines: Support Group "Found Set in Portal"

[Josh Ormond]

Here is one way. Not perfect...but it works.

http://fmforums.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/197755/post/302354/fromactivity/myposts/#302354

Edited March 28, 2009 by Guest

[bcooney]

Ray's technique uses a CF, and hits limits with recursion on large data sets.

[Josh Ormond]

True.

I tested it on found sets of between 10-10000...it worked fine for that.

Obviously the more records in the found set...the longer it will take.

You could also go another route and go to a layout that only has the ID field...copy all records and then paste them into a global on the layout you want to display the portal. It uses the local machines clipboard, but is significantly faster for larger data sets.

But I suppose it depends on what you are using it for. Portal filtering has some limitations, and affect on db size. At a certain point, you simply can't use portals to display a found set. It just isn't practical. But for smaller found set (expecially less than a few thousand), I have found these techniques to work nicely in certain circumstances.

[Josh Ormond]

Ray's technique uses a CF, and hits limits with recursion on large data sets.

Thinking about this some more. What do you mean by limits with recursion?

I know the limits, but I don't quite see how it affects what this CF is being use for.

There is definitely a slow down in the process on large data sets because of the Replace Field Contents script step...but I am not seeing how it could hit the top end of the recursion limits. Appreciate the info!!! Thanks.

[bcooney]

Isn't Ray's CF doing something like this? Advisor Doc by JMO

[Josh Ormond]

The CF is just generating a single find code...then a Replace Field Content enters that single code into each of the records in the found set.

Just a means to set the relationship so the found records display in the portal.

With that it doesn't matter how large the found set is. Except how long it takes for the Replace step to finish. I tested it on found sets of 10-30000 and it works fine, just a bit slower on the upper end.

[bcooney]

It uses Replace Field Content to a field not a global? That's not very multi-user friendly. I'll have to review Ray's demo again.

Edit: I've reviewed Ray's demo again. It uses a calc'd multikey of the found set's primary keys. This calc uses a recursive custom function, and so I believe it would hit the limit of recursion. Correct?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Guest

[Josh Ormond]

For a multi-user solution with more than a few users, I use the alternate method I mentioned. It destroys the user's clipboard, but works fast.

Go to layout with just the ID field, Copy all records, paste into a global to make the relationship.

At least until I have time to work out another method.

I posted that file to get some feedback about better ways to handle this whole found set in a portal thing. The suggestion to use Ray's CF came from David Head, based on a specific need I had for a particular solution. Feel free to tear it apart and tell me what is not a good idea. I don't offend easy. Suggestions on alternative methods are always appreciated too.

Edit: I've reviewed Ray's demo again. It uses a calc'd multikey of the found set's primary keys. This calc uses a recursive custom function, and so I believe it would hit the limit of recursion. Correct?

Not sure where you are looking. The CF is Ray's Base36 ID function.

The script that runs the search just takes the generated ID and places it in each record. It isn't gathering the ID's. Unless I am not understanding how it works. Although, I think I do. I was the one that made that file.

[bcooney]

We're looking at two different demos. I was looking at Ray's Found Set in a Portal demo "PortalFoundSet.fp7".

[comment]

See also:

http://fmforums.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/197149/

[Josh Ormond]

Wheewww. I thought I had lost it for a minute. Thanks.