Submitted by Jon on 2012/01/04 14:16
Maybe I am not understanding this. I need to create a duplicate of an existing grid, but I need the grid to hold fresh data. In other words, it has to be blank. Now I realize that duplicating a grid really just creates a copy of an existing grid with a different name. The source is the same as the original, so it shows all the data contained in the original. Deleting any data in the copy also deletes it from the original. So far, so good.
 
When I go to Manage Grids and try to change the source, shouldn't I see the name of the duplicate? If I have a grid called 2011 and duplicate it with the name 2012, shouldn't 2012 become available as a field? When I tried to create a field called 2012, IQ reported that this field already existed. If it does, I cannot find it.
 
This does not seem to be consistent with creating a new  grid. When I do that, a corresponding field is created.
 
Jon

Comments

> If I have a grid called 2011 and duplicate it with the name 2012,
> shouldn't 2012 become available as a field? When I tried to
> create a field called 2012, IQ reported that this field already existed.
> If it does, I cannot find it.
 
The new duplicate grid does not create a new field here either, and yeah, I find that confusing too.
I didn't have a problem though when I then created a field with the new grid's name.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win 7 Pro 64bit ~ Portable IQ  0.9.25.W5

Isn't a duplicate... a duplicate ? So the source, filters etc. are the same in the duplicated grid.
 
I understand that the confusion emerges from the fact that when one creates a new grid from scratch using the "New grid" dialog, a new field (then used as the grid source) is created to speed up the process.
 
However, if you look at the option in this same dialog, you'll see that you can also create a new grid choosing to not create a new field based on the new grid's name, but instead choosing an existing field as the grid source.
 
I'm not sure how to make the process more transparent without being daunting. In any case, having a new field being created everytime I create a duplicate, would be quite annoying... I very much prefer to have it the way it is now.
 
Maybe the options of creating a new field from the grid name vs using an existing field as the grid source should still be a choice when creating a duplicate ? seems like it would make the UI more complex... But who knows.
 
 
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows XP Home Edition, Service pack 3
Dell Vostro 1500, Ram:3gb, CPU: Intel Core2Duo T7500 2.2ghz

Tom

2012/01/05 04:24

Permalink

 
good points Amando.
I guess when I did it I just hadnt thought about the practicalities.
 
When I do think about it, I would probably use this most to create variations on a grid i.e. with the same source, but with different filters/columns/settings.
 
 
Jon's example though is complicated by the difficulty creating the "2012" field
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win 7 Pro 64bit ~ Portable IQ  0.9.25.W5

Jon

2012/01/05 08:14

Permalink

[quote=Tom]
 
good points Amando.
I guess when I did it I just hadnt thought about the practicalities.
 
When I do think about it, I would probably use this most to create variations on a grid i.e. with the same source, but with different filters/columns/settings.
 
 
Jon's example though is complicated by the difficulty creating the "2012" field
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win 7 Pro 64bit ~ Portable IQ  0.9.25.W5
[/quote]
 
Yes, I agree that Armando's argument makes sense if the intention is to use the duplicate grid as an alternate way of viewing an existing grid. And I suppose the automatic addition of fields based on the names of the duplicates would seriously complicate the database, especially if the duplicates are intended for temporary use. I withdraw my complaint.
 
I seem to have resolved the difficulty in creating a field with the same name as the duplicate grid. A fresh install of W5 portable seems to have cured this. Why? I have no idea. However, there is another problem with W5 that is not resolved by a fresh install.
 
Deleting large numbers of items (approximately 100 with sub items for most) works,  but the cursor never returns to normal. It always shows that it is busy. I can navigate to other grids, but the cursor does not return to normal. After the items are deleted, IQ shows normal CPU usage. This does not occur with W3.
 
Jon

reesd

2012/01/10 11:17

Permalink

[quote=Jon]
[quote=Tom]
When I do think about it, I would probably use this most to create variations on a grid i.e. with the same source, but with different filters/columns/settings.[/quote]
 
Yes, I agree that Armando's argument makes sense if the intention is to use the duplicate grid as an alternate way of viewing an existing grid. And I suppose the automatic addition of fields based on the names of the duplicates would seriously complicate the database, especially if the duplicates are intended for temporary use. I withdraw my complaint.
 
[/quote]
 
I definitely have always seen this as a way to create additional "views". Of course I routinely change my source field so I already have separated Grids and Fields in my mind.
 
Perhaps the new/duplicate grid just needs some more work. It already has the option for "set custom grid source" which allows you to select a different field. And we already have discussed it needs some work on the new duplicate side in that thread. So maybe it should have something like:
 
Grid Name - free text
Source Field - drop-down with list of fields that defaults to <New Grid Name>
Duplicate Existing Grid: checkbox and if enabled drop-down of existing grids
 
d