AnsweredAssumed Answered

disadvantages of repetition fields for a multi-language database?

Question asked by rohrkemper on Jun 20, 2016
Latest reply on Jun 22, 2016 by bigtom

We're creating a new master for a contacts database that we will distribute to 20 servers around the world.


Would using repetition fields be a good idea and would there be any disadvantages? For example, to store company names, we'd have a field called CompanyName with 10 repetitions, one for each language.


Here are some specific questions, and any other input, or even example files would be welcome.



  • The database file and structure should be the same on all 20 servers (which repetition to use can be read from a global parameters file and the specific set of selected parameters can be controlled by the first 3 letters of the database name, i.e. AMS_Contacts is a database in Amsterdam and the script launched at open will get "AMS" and use this to determine that repetition 9 has company names in Dutch)
  • Search should be possible across all languages. i.e. See if the company name matches "xyz" in any repetition of the field CompanyName


Additional concerns:

  • What is the likelihood that FileMaker will stop supporting repetition fields? I've seen this official post: Converting repeating fields to portals | FileMaker
  • Can a single field be defined such that it accepts all languages and has repetitions? I've checked and it seems that we don't need Furigana for Japanese
  • Are repetition fields easier to work with and maintain for complex databases as opposed to a sub-table and a portal?