Thanks, Corn, for the reply.  I'm not clear about the implications of your
first paragraph and whether this implies a better way to solve my problem.

Your other point about the superset table is well taken and which I
considered early on.

This application keeps track of psychiatric test results for children.
There are currently 20 some tests implemented with more possible later.
Early on I thought about collecting common information in a single table and
placing the unique information in their own tables for each test with
relations to the common table.  However, my problem was that I didn't know
yet what all the tests where and what would be common.  Even if I knew what
was common between all tests, the same question would come up again between
different test class-types (mental, hearing, vision, etc.).  Hence the
decision to treat each test as separate tables and solve the common
information problem(s) separately as the understanding of
commonality-groupings became apparent.

Does this help?

Thanks,
Gary



-----Original Message-----
From: FileMaker Pro Discussions [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Corn Walker
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Copying information from one table to another

On Jan 1, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Gary Hunt wrote:

> I still consider myself pretty new at Filemaker.  What I really want  
> to do is create a Union query of similar subsetted information from  
> about 20 tables.  However, I understand Filemaker does not support  
> "Union" Queries.

It's not the union query FMP doesn't support per se but rather the  
dynamic table to contain the results of the query. Depending on your  
relational structure you may be able to approximate a union join in  
FMP although not dynamic attribute aggregation nor dynamic record  
creation.

My first question is "20 subsetted tables?" I'm fairly familiar with  
entity types and subtypes and have yet to find a situation where I  
would have 20 subtypes for an entity class. Why so many tables?

Second, if these are subsets then that presumes there is or could be a  
table for the superset. Why not perform the query there?

Cheers,
-corn



Corn Walker
The Proof Group
http://proofgroup.com/

Reply via email to