FMPRO-L Archives

May 2010, Week 1

FMPRO-L@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
FileMaker Pro Discussions <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 May 2010 13:55:37 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Thanks, Geoff.

I was afraid that was the answer re: stored calculations.  Your  
suggestion to tackle the problem just at the second level sounds like  
it would be well worth some consideration.

I am definitely not excited about the option of exporting and  
importing data between the levels, nor do I like the look up or auto- 
calc option.  Too easy to end up looking at incorrect info based on  
old data.

I appreciate your suggestions.  Thanks again.

Sue

On May 5, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Geoff Graham wrote:

> On May 5, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Sue wrote:
>
>> I am wondering what steps I could take within Filemaker to speed up  
>> the file functioning, such as possibly storing calculation results  
>> at each level (none are stored at present, which I suspect is the  
>> problem).  Is there anything I need to consider before changing all  
>> of my calculations to stored? Can I assume the fields will  
>> recalculate as necessary whenever additional data is added at the  
>> bottom level, or not?
>
> That does appear to be the low-hanging fruit for you. Your second  
> option actually changes your structure some, which you are satisfied  
> with except for the speed issue.
>
> Stored calcs that use indexable data from the current record will  
> auto-update; Stored calcs that use data from a related record will  
> not, if only the data in the related file has changed.
> so from what I'm picturing of your solution, no, they will not  
> update as necessary. I might try to change a few key fields at that  
> 2nd level to text, number, whatever; instead of a calc, with the  
> needed lower level data getting in there via lookup or auto-entered  
> calc. From the description of your structure, just getting some  
> indexes at that second level may very well give you acceptable  
> performance again.
>
> Lookups and auto-enters may not cut for you you, in which case I  
> would brute-force it: Script getting the data from level one to  
> level two. I picture a looping script with a go to related record  
> and a few variables. If I had to export a summary temp file from  
> level one, then import that into level two, well I would hate myself  
> a little, but I'd eventually get to sleep that night. :)
>
> Geoff

ATOM RSS1 RSS2