Re: Is this possible in FilemakerPro 7 ? ...

> delete the original record from its file (if its still in a file), and
> copy
> the 'later twin' to a new file for archival. This would leave the 2 files
> to
> receive more imported 'originals' and 'later twins' for comparison.

Huh?

Let's say that you had a field, N, in both files (A & B), that would be
identical in the case of duplicate records. You want:

If Record[N] is in A, but not in B, then do nothing

If Record[N] is in B, but not in A, then do nothing

If Record[N] is in A *and* in B then delete it from A and create a copy of
Record[N] in a new file, C, leaving B unchanged?

Do I understand you correctly? Is A always the original file? (If not, how
do I know which is the original record?)

Bill


"Simon Cook" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BF718DD0.1561%simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply,
>
>
> On 11/10/05 14:52, in article aZSdnfyAUvMgXtbeRVn-jA@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Bill
> Marriott" <wjm@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Simon,
>>
>> Are you saying that you have two separate FileMaker Pro 7 files --
>> identical
>> in structure, but not in the records they contain -- that are overlapping
>> each other with some information?
>
> Yes
>>
>> Some questions first:
>>
>> - Is there some reason why the files are separate?
>
> I separated the files because I thought it would be easier to compare them
> if they were separate. Each record has an 'original' version, and should
> have a later 'twin' (all records have a date and time attached) what I
> want
> to do is 'weed out' the ones that are already twinned and see whats left.
> The two files (or two types of records!) could be called therefore
> "original' data and 'later twin'. I would write the whole reason why for
> this but I don't think it would be quick, for our company we have a
> particular reason we want to do this. Actually more than 3 of the 8 fields
> would be identical, but I thought checking just these three would be 'belt
> and braces' enough.
>>
>> - Which file should retain the record when a duplicate is found?
>
> I thought this through a little more, probably the best thing to do is to
> delete the original record from its file (if its still in a file), and
> copy
> the 'later twin' to a new file for archival. This would leave the 2 files
> to
> receive more imported 'originals' and 'later twins' for comparison.
>>
>> - What should happen when information in those three fields is identical,
>> but the information in the other fields for those two records is not?
>
> This wouldn't matter, if the 3 field rule is fulfilled we are happy.
>
> Thanks again, sincerely,
> Simon
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> "Simon Cook" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:BF71568D.1517%simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Hi, I have been trying to get something to work and I am probably going
>>> about it the wrong way. I have 2 filemaker pro 7 databases. A proportion
>>> of
>>> the records in both databases have 3 fields common. In other words if
>>> you
>>> were just looking at these 3 fields, then a proportion of the records in
>>> one
>>> database would have an identical pair in the other.
>>> The field structure in each database is identical.
>>> I want to automatically compare both databases and delete the pairs (one
>>> from each database). This would leave me with 2 database of records that
>>> did
>>> not have a pair in the other database. I can't see my way through the
>>> documentation to see if this is possible.
>>> Any help VERY gratefully received.
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this possible in FilemakerPro 7 ? ...
    ... FP and Michael Paine made some great suggestions in the thread. ... > The important thing is to mark the 'original' and the 'later twin' in the ... >>> receive more imported 'originals' and 'later twins' for comparison. ... >>> Simon ...
    (comp.databases.filemaker)
  • Re: Is this possible in FilemakerPro 7 ? ...
    ... The important thing is to mark the 'original' and the 'later twin' in the ... >> receive more imported 'originals' and 'later twins' for comparison. ... >>> Simon, ... >> particular reason we want to do this. ...
    (comp.databases.filemaker)
  • Re: Real amp (actually speaker) question
    ... have caught on at all for guitar. ... They're catching on fast for bass, ... keep the originals with the Twin. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Real amp (actually speaker) question
    ... have caught on at all for guitar. ... They're catching on fast for bass, ... keep the originals with the Twin. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Program failure
    ... delete the original and compile and save the new form with the originals ... The database is now fully functional. ... > Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. ... rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.modulesdaovba)