6 Replies Latest reply on Nov 15, 2009 3:54 PM by davidanders

    Many fields under one name



      Many fields under one name




      There are around 100 quantity fields in a layout.  Is it necessary to create 100+100+100+100(item,rate,quantity,amount) fields for this?  Is there any other method to bring all these fields under one field(or name)

        • 1. Re: Many fields under one name

          Yes, there is.


          One quantity field and 100 records.

          • 2. Re: Many fields under one name
               You might want to look up "Portal" in filemaker's help system. That's the most common method of implementing Daniele's excellent advice on a layout.
            • 3. Re: Many fields under one name

              hey thanks for reply.


              still i have a doubt....  i can use portal for that.. but i have a problem regarding tht...


              let me explain...

              take for an example.. i have 100 amount records ...  if i want the sum of first 25 records in one field and sum of next 25 records in another field means.. how can i do this... is itt achievable in portal way???



              watiting for reply,

              thanks !

              • 4. Re: Many fields under one name

                You could use a rather tedious calculation,using GetNthRecord (field; number)

                Which is in the Logical functions


                portal relationship::amt + GetNthRecord (portal relationship::amt; 2) + GetNthRecord (portal relationship::amt; 3), etc., for the numbers desired.

                (1st one is targeted by the (unsorted) relationship itself, hence does not need a GetNthRecord())


                Or possibly a Custom Function? Can't think of one off hand, but there are a lot of them around. That would require FileMaker Pro Advanced to implement (but Pro could use it). 


                But one has to wonder why; why 25? and why do this in the first place? It does not seem very logical. Are these particular "types" of things? If so, there's a better way to do it (actually a couple of ways); either several relationships or several calculation fields; I think I'd go with the calculation fields.


                • 5. Re: Many fields under one name
                     If each of the 25 records indicate a type or a grouping then there should be a field called Type which tells why those 25 are different from the next 25 and so on.  Then as Mr. Jones says, using relations (or even sub summary reports) gives you what you need very easily by grouping by this Type field.
                  • 6. Re: Many fields under one name

                    You may find this WhitePaper useful

                     White Paper for FMP Novices