If you establish a found set and go to another window with a layout based on the same table the found set will be retained.
Or if you base two layouts on different Tutorial: What are Table Occurrences? of the same table, you can change back and forth between layouts and each will have it's own found set even though both layouts show records from the same table.
Not to promote other products, but I purchased an excellent 3 disc tutorial from here:
On the advanced volume (which I'm still working through) the author explains a method of not only saving a found set, and multiple found sets, but naming them and storing them so you can retrieve them later or even the next day. So it can be done, but unfortunately I cannot, will not (should not) post this information because it's copyrighted. If I find that it appears publically, in a blog, or a web site, then I'll report back.
Thank you for the answers.
But if anyone had a solution for my Find query itself, it would be very helpful.
But now for my new application, I have to compare a field in a table to a field in another table.
Like Table1:ID = Table2:ID
We kinda figured that if you didn't go to the extreme of importing records just to preserve a found set, you wouldn't actually need to do this.
Not sure if this really matches the situation you have in mind, but....
If you define a relationship between Table1 and Table2 that matches by ID, then on a layout based on Table1, Table2::ID will be empty if there is no matching record. In either a manual or scripted find, you could set up an Omit request on such a layout with an asterisk * placed in the Table2::ID field and your find will omit all records from Table1 that do not have at least one matching record in Table2.
You can use a layout based on Table2 to turn this around and find all records in Table2 that have at least one matching record in Table1.
I did a try with the asterisk * operator.
I also changed the table the layout is based on. (Multiple times, trial and error)
Now the result is always the same: All the records show up from table1, so no filtering occured.
So however I set up the Find criteria, I keep either getting all the records or no record at all.
Unless I would submit the file itself, I don't think more can be done.
You need to pay very careful attention to how your layout is set up first.
Check Layout Setup, Show records from. It should read "table 1".
In layout mode make sure that you have the table 1::ID and Table 2::ID fields placed on your layout.
In browse mode, inspect your records by clicking through a bunch of them or by setting this up as a table view where you can see a lot of records in a tabular format.
Do you see cases where the Table 2::ID field is empty?
It's possible that for every record in Table 1, there is at least one record in Table 2 with a matching ID. You'll have to check and see.
When you enter find mode, make sure that you enter the asterisk into Table 2::ID and not Table 1::ID. Make sure that you click the Omit button in the tool bar area to make this an Omit request.
If that finds all records, then no record in Table 2 has a matching ID to a record in Table 1. If ti does not find any records then all records in table 1 have at least one record in table 2 with a matching ID.
Since I only have 6 records in table1 and 20 in table", I can clearly see everything in table view.
Once filtered, the found set in table1 must have only 3 records.
It does not make sense, but it looks like the layout should be based on my 2 tables at the same time to work this out.
I once did some SQL on Foxpro and this was so simple.
I guess Filemaker has different rules.
And when you can see them all in table view can you see that table2::ID is empty for some records?
You do not need a layout based on both tables and this is impossible anyway.
What I have described does work. I've used it many times. The key is to figure out why it is not working for you and so I listed a set of steps to check very carefully as if the layout is not set up correctly or your don't set up the find request correctly, the method will fail.
I am currently sending the file to somebody who could possibly help.
If I get a solution, I will post it.