Professional Web Applications Themes

Summary fields or Summary table? - FileMaker

First posting to the group - thanks to everyone for all the great tips! Is there any advantage either way between having a large number of summary fields (20 or more) in a table, as opposed to creating a related table and using sum(related field)? I wish FM would let me do summary queries on the fly, without defining a field or table first. Scott...

  1. #1

    Default Summary fields or Summary table?

    First posting to the group - thanks to everyone for all the great
    tips!

    Is there any advantage either way between having a large number of
    summary fields (20 or more) in a table, as opposed to creating a
    related table and using sum(related field)?

    I wish FM would let me do summary queries on the fly, without defining
    a field or table first.

    Scott
    Scott Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Summary fields or Summary table?

    One nice thing about the summary field is that you can place it in
    different layout parts to get different results. Place it in the body
    to sum all records in the found set. Place it in a sub-summary part
    sorted by last name to get a sub-total for only that last name. Place
    it in a sub-summary part sorted by city to get a sub-total for only that
    city. So define the field once and it is flexible. Even if you have 20
    summary fields, it only taxes the system when they appear on the current
    layout. Summary fields are usually used in reports.

    On the other hand, if you are looking for a way to always show a
    pre-defined total on a commonly used screen, then the calc fields would
    be the way to go. Stored calcs will always tax the system whenever one
    of their target fields has changed -- whether on the current screen or
    not. Unstored calcs only tax when on the screen or called via a script
    or other calc.

    Scott wrote:
    > First posting to the group - thanks to everyone for all the great
    > tips!
    >
    > Is there any advantage either way between having a large number of
    > summary fields (20 or more) in a table, as opposed to creating a
    > related table and using sum(related field)?
    >
    > I wish FM would let me do summary queries on the fly, without defining
    > a field or table first.
    >
    > Scott
    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Howard Schlossberg (818) 883-2846
    FM Pro Solutions Los Angeles, California
    Associate Member, FileMaker Solutions Alliance

    Howard Schlossberg Guest

Similar Threads

  1. summary table
    By Shane in forum IBM DB2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 11th, 04:39 AM
  2. How to derive summary info from one single table..
    By Anith Sen in forum Microsoft SQL / MS SQL Server
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 8th, 01:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139