8 Replies Latest reply on Jul 2, 2015 8:53 AM by mark_scott

    Dropdown list in "self" Table


      Hi everbody,


      How could I display in a layer with one of its recordsets linked to a table (COMPANY) the full list of one Field of the table

      In the example :

      • Table COMPANY
      • Recordset 1
      • Dropdown list with all fieds COMPANY::Company name



      Thanks in advance



        • 1. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

          What does “display in a layer with one of its recordsets linked to a table (COMPANY)“ mean? From a distance, it almost looks like English …


          I assume that what you want can be achieved by creating a calc field, type text!


          Case ( RecordSetID = 1 ; Company )


          and create a value list with that field.


          This is not very expandable or scalable; whatever a “record set” is, you could put it into its own table and create a conditional VL of companyName from that context.


          OTOH, if what you really want is to maintain multiple addresses per company, create an Address table.


          It's usually better to ask “how can I reach goal xyz?”, rather than for implementation details of technique xyz, which you assume is the right one.

          • 2. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

            Ah ah! Sorry for my very poor English. But thank you for doing your best to translate


            1/ First of all what I mean by recordset sir a full line of all the fields of my table set by an ID (records)

            2/ So my question was, to be able to display on table layer ( here table COMPANY), for each record, on the side, the full list of all the records of 1 particular field (here Company name). Does it make sense ?


            It may look silly, but I want to be able to have a look at all the company names of my table. Some kind of visual checking.


            I am not sure that your proposal is the right one as - if I'm not wrong - there is no need of any ID to refer to.



            • 3. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

              If I understand the question. The other alternative is to make a new table with a self relationship. Then a value list and define it with the values of the required field.

              • 4. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

                • create a new table occurrence of Company; call it, say, Company_self

                • relate Company to Company_self by any two fields and the Cartesian operator, e.g. name x name

                • add a portal of Company_self onto the layout, and

                • put Company_self::name into it


                There's your list, which you could even use for navigation.

                • 5. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

                  Thank you very much.

                  I am glad as I was on the right way but missed the Cartesian operator.


                  my very best


                  • 6. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

                    thank you.

                    I am trying erolst's solution that is a bit more precise than yours.

                    my very best


                    • 7. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

                      Just a reminder: Once you receive a reply that solves your problem, be sure to come back to this posting and mark it as "Correct Answer". This does 3 things:

                      (1) It gives that person credit for having provided the answer.

                      (2) It gives her or him the satisfaction of having helped a fellow user.

                      (3) It alerts other helpful people that they need not spend any time on the problem, since it's been fixed.

                      • 8. Re: Dropdown list in "self" Table

                        But don't mark Richard's reply in this thread as the correct answer (or mine, for that matter).


                        That happened in another thread recently.  Someone — maybe it was you, Richard — reminded the OP to mark the correct answer, only to have the OP mark that reminder as the correct answer instead.    At least it was good for a laugh, but the OP in that case obviously was not clear on the concept.