Found Set of Unique records based on one field, no repeats

[chrisknight55]

I have an school attendance roster of three entered classes, with a copied time stamp:

Billy Kidd Math 4/20/2011 1:21:10

Jane Doe Math 4/20/2011 1:21:10

Al Schmidt Math 4/20/2011 1:21:10

Carole King Math 4/20/2011 1:21:10

Bob Tripp Science 4/21/2011 3:18:05

Julie Tool Science 4/21/2011 3:18:05

Art Deli Science 4/21/2011 3:18:05

Joey Twoo English 4/23/2011 9:28:15

Kay Jewel English 4/23/2011 9:28:15

Daddy Love English 4/23/2011 9:28:15

How can I Perform a Find that results in:

...... Math 4/20/2011 1:21:10

...... Science 4/21/2011 3:18:05

.............. English 4/23/2011 9:28:15

One occurrence per class entered

Thanks

[comment]

You can't (well, not without a disproportionate effort). You can, however, sort the records by subject and by timestamp, and show only the sub-summary part.

[chrisknight55]

I've found a solid solution (This from a FM-Forums in July 2008)

goto record [first]

loop

exit loop if [ get ( foundcount ) = 0 ]

if [ $id =timestamp ]

omit record

else

set variable [ $id ;timestamp ]

go to record [ next , exit after last ]

end if

end loop

Thanks all for your help, always.

[comment]

Actually, you should start by sorting the records. Anyway, now you know what I meant by "disproportionate effort".

[chrisknight55]

Actually, you should start by sorting the records. Anyway, now you know what I meant by "disproportionate effort".

Yes, of course. Sorry, sorted first.

And just to say, I so appreciate your help and that of others here. I'm often dead in the water by the time I get here, but I so often feel a discouragement of sorts. When someone says you can't do this, I hear I shouldn't try. But I feel just the opposite. I'm happy to keep trying. At my beginner level, every bit of this is hammering square pegs into round holes, and when it finally works I'm ecstatic.

This isn't disproportionate. It's ten lines of code, it does exactly what I need, and doesn't seem to make FMP bow to my will, rather than the more common me bowing to its will. And I got to use Omit Record for the first time.

Thanks, especially for the conversation. I'm thrilled when I get this stuff to work. Any and all help is always greatly appreciated.

Chris

[Vaughan]

When someone says you can't do this, I hear I shouldn't try. But I feel just the opposite. I'm happy to keep trying.... every bit of this is hammering square pegs into round holes, and when it finally works I'm ecstatic

That's part of the problem for people starting out: they ARE trying to put square pegs into round holes. Getting it in doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I'm building a house. Which is better for hitting in nails, a glass bottle or a shoe?

[chrisknight55]

That's part of the problem for people starting out: they ARE trying to put square pegs into round holes. Getting it in doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I'm building a house. Which is better for hitting in nails, a glass bottle or a shoe?

Well, a shoe of course

Is this the case in my request for my found set? Is it wrong?

I understand I could build this 'better' by using a parent list to make the attendance roster in the first place, but I see a limitation with that.

But I'd say that's not my point.

The responder said "You can't.." (I don't mean to rag on him in ANY way. I so appreciate his and yours and others' help.)

I'm just asking for some encouragement.

Like...

Here's what you've asked for.

Or... Look into Omit Record and you'll find an answer.

BUT, here's why a better structure is better...

It doesn't help to just say I'm wrong, especially when there are almost no resources where newbies can learn that need for structure. I want to hear why. And I won't get it the first time, but I'm really trying. And I'll get it.

Thanks again.

[comment]

When someone says you can't do this, I hear I shouldn't try. But I feel just the opposite.

Let me try and put this back into perspective. First, what you did is not a waste of time, because you have learned something. And I think all of us know the addiction of making FMP "bow to our will".

Now, why is this not a good method? Because it needs to process each record individually. With a large amount of records, it will require a disproportionate effort of the computer and an equally disproportionate amount of your time. Why should you care, when you'll only be dealing with a few records at a time? Because a good method is worth learning, and all other things being equal...

I'm just asking for some encouragement.

Like...

Here's what you've asked for.

Or... Look into Omit Record and you'll find an answer.

BUT, here's why a better structure is better...

I don't see why I should have picked Omit Record out of all possible sub-optimal approaches. As for a better method, I have suggested it in my first post - before you mentioned omitting record one-by-one. So basically you're saying that you have asked for directions and you are disappointed by not having been sent down the scenic route you have discovered later by yourself. :P

[chrisknight55]

Now, why is this not a good method? Because it needs to process each record individually. With a large amount of records, it will require a disproportionate effort of the computer and an equally disproportionate amount of your time. Why should you care, when you'll only be dealing with a few records at a time? Because a good method is worth learning, and all other things being equal...

This! I misunderstood your original comment of 'disproportionate' to mean my use of programming time.

As to large amount of records, my strategy was to archive attendance records. Four hundred students, 20 classes a month, 12 months a year is 100,000 records in a year, five years would be half a million records, but the records are almost never used after their current month. So I'm faced with maintaining two tables, the original parent list of classes that generated the attendance roster for each class, and the attendance roster itself, and faced with operating a very large table on a daily basis. Instead if I can archive the roster and make the roster re-generate its own 'parent list' if ever needed, seems simpler. If that's not a good strategy, if you can point me elsewhere, thanks.

Yes, I did like finding another way. I did try the other, but I don't understand reports and sub-summary fields yet and couldn't get it to work. I'll look again.