It's usual to refer to "parent" and "child" tables rather than master and slave, but whatever suits I guess...
The way two tables are related is by key fields. The "parent" table has a "primary key" field that is usually an auto-entered serial number -- the values in the primary key field must be unique and invariant (unchanging). Though it's possible to use, say, a person's name as the primary key, people's names are neither unique nor invariant.
The "child" table has a "foreign key" field in it. The foreign key holds the value of the parent record. The relationship matches when the value in the primary key and the foreign key is the same.
In the relationship graph, join the table occurrence of the parent and child tables together with the primary and foreign key fields.
Following on from this, databases are only "related" when they have some kind of information in common. In your case, there should be a field in the "master" database that matches a field in the "slave" table. If there isn't then either the tables aren't really related, or you'll have to add the fields and then do the work of matching the related records up manually.
For an example of two un-related tables, think about a Contacts table with people's details, and a Songs table. They'd only be related if the Songs table had a field with a person's name in it (being the artist or composer or something) and the names matched up exactly.
Though as I said, names fields would be a poor choice for match fields because they are neither unique nor invariant. But it'd be a good start.
The fields in both the parent and child match perfectly. The difference is the parent fields are of a calculated result, and the child fields are text. I did a test where I changed the parent fields to just plain text and typed the data in manually, and they did link. So how can "fool" filemaker into thinking these calculated results are text?
A couple of questions:
Is the calculation result set to text?
Is the field where the primary key resides indexed?
If the above two answers are yes, can you put a set of brackets around the entire calculation and use the GetasText command?
Calculation result is set to text, and the primary key field(s) are all indexed.
I then used the getastext for the calculation(s), and it still didn't work.
Hi "rjacksonla",This type of relationship will work. I've done this many times for client projects and have no issues.I just created a small test file that I can send to you to show you that is does work... you could review it to see if you've missed anything.Let me know...Kundinger
cool! please send me the file and I'll see if it works
I have sent a test file to our Technical Support contact. He should contact you shortly by email and enclose the file.
If you haven't heard anything by the end of the day, please let me know, and I'll make sure it gets sent immediately.
The contents of the two fields have to match *exactly* for the relationship to work. If the parent record has "smith" the child record will not match if it has "smith " with a trailing space. The same applies if there is a leading space, or different spacing in-between words.
Generally it's case insensitive though, so "smith" will match with "Smith". It only becomes case sensitive if the field's default language (in the storage tab of Manage Database dialog) is set to Unicode. It might be worth checking that the languages are set to the same for both tables.
Ahhh...I see you have both the databases incorporated into one. Mine are two separate Filemaker documents. Perhaps that's why they're not linking?
No, it does not matter whether the tables are in the same or separate files.
Well, I'm still not having any luck with this one. I will be able to spend more time over the weekend to troubleshoot it.
OK, I think I've had a breakthrough on this issue. I apologize in advance if some of my terminology is incorrect or seems confusing.
I was just poking around while in browse mode, and when I randomly highlighted a text field (with data in it) and then deleted it and hit "undo" it linked all the data for that record! It was if I had "refreshed" the screen if you will. It only did that for that one record. So I think I'm getting somewhere 'cause it now proves that the two databases are communicating with each other.
I'd like for ALL of the records to "refresh" if you will. If anyone has any suggestions that would be wonderful.
Ignore my last reply - I FIGURED IT OUT! I just needed to turn on the Perform auto-enter options while importing and it worked. Problem solved!
THANK YOU EVERYONE who helped me with this! I really appreciate it!!!!!