Record Number = Reference number
Posted 11 July 2012 - 07:11 AM
Anyway, for what it's worth, I thought I would make one more plea for an option to automatically make the reference number equal to the record number so it could be used in large databases where hundreds of names are exactly the same and record numbers brings you right to the correct person.
Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:09 PM
Wow it worked... Thank you....
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
Using FO and RM since FO2.0
Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:55 PM
The program simply kept telling me it was Creating a Fact List and never stopped.
I finally had to cancel it after waiting way too long.
Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:57 PM
Those reports would take much longer to create for 167,000+ people. Although minipulating your database may have caused problems also, and perhaps you could ask the person who did that work for you what the problem might have been caused by the method used in changing your database outside of RM.
Have you gone to Files, Database tools and run those tools? And then retried the report?
Perhaps the wish should be to have the choice to print the record number in all reports and/or interactive reports where you can go directly to the person from the report.
The People view has brought us a quicker way to find which same name person we are looking for. Decide which facts best helps to tell the difference between people and customize the view with those facts, Birth date and place, Death date and place, occupation, residence, etc. Or make a Group, people with same name with any fact contains Texas, for instance, and choose the Group in the People view. Put the Sidebar in Family view.
I add an Alternate fact to same named persons with something in the Suffix field that identifies that person to me, parents, grandparents, residence, brothers or sisters, etc. I probably don't have as many same named people as you do but I can pretty quickly find who I want with the Anternate name showing in the People view and Family view in the Sidebar and the right facts customized in the People view.
Posted 12 July 2012 - 08:01 PM
Then click once or twice on the reference number heading to sort up or down on that number.
All of the people without a reference number will be at the top end with the little triangle pointing down.
If there aren't too many, you can edit each one and add the number.
Posted 13 July 2012 - 09:27 AM
This is not only good for what Jim wants but will help those the use the RIN as a filing system number. Moving the RIN to a Ref No would help in making their numbering systems stable.
I assign everyone a Ref No in my database. To check that each person has one I use the method Alfred describes. I sort in the People View on the Ref No fact to find those that are missing.
Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:47 AM
The second glitch is: if I sort that "people" list with Name, Rec #, Ref # on the record number, they all seem fine. If I sort on the Ref #, I miss some numbers. I went into the missing number people and re-entered the ref number thinking that there might be a space before or after the number causing them not to sort in the right place; to no avail. The numbers go like this after the sort: Numbers 1 to 15 are missing, 16 is there, 17 to 19 are missing, 32 to 36 are missing, 38 is missing, I scrolled down thru the first 10,000 and did not find those numbers appearing. They must be somewhere but I can't find them. It's no biggee but just thought I would mention it.
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:46 AM
Not really following what's happening to your People List and missing Reference Numbers. Are you saying you added Reference Numbers but they are not showing up. Rebuild the index and see if they do.
Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:38 PM
On the group issue. I select the People View, Select the Group, create a new group, select people by Surname = Belanger, the program goes thru its work and comes up with 56,658 people, I click OK, it asks me for a group name, I enter Belangers, I click OK, the program locks up and I have to do a CTL-ALT-DEL to get out of it. Nothing else works.
Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:52 PM
I have Jim's database from when (June 2011) it had almost 162,000 individuals in it (6000 fewer than now) and was the one to do an SQLite query on it to add a REFN fact with a description value equal to the Record Number (Rec#). He had already manually entered some 4000 such REFN facts of the form 1, 2, 3 ... and some with leading 0's, e.g., 000058; in some cases he had additional text so I left all of his REFN facts untouched. My query added the REFN facts to all other persons lacking a REFN, in the form 1, 2, 3, ..., i.e., an additional 158,000 REFN facts. Since then he has added another 6000 persons, each, presumably, with a manually entered REFN fact.
When People View is sorted on the Rec# column, the supposedly missing records 1-15, etc. are displayed in the order they should be. However, when sorted on Reference No., they are not. The list starts at 16, skips 18 and 32-36, etc. These 'missing' ones can be found way down the list. Comparing this with the original database, it is apparent that the 'missing' ones are the ones entered manually via RM while the ones at the top of the list (16, 17, 19-31, 37, etc.) were added by SQLite query. It appears that the sorting algorithm in People View sorted all the REFNs added by the query first, in numerical order, and then the manually entered ones next, in alphabetical order, e.g., 029730, 076364, 1, 10, 100095. SQLite is quite loose as to data types so I'm guessing that my query resulted in a numeric type while those REFNs added through the Description field in the Edit Person screen are explicitly cast as text. The RM sorting algorithm appears to detect the data type and handles them accordingly, numeric first as number values, text second in place-sensitive alphabetical order.
The query Copy RIN to REFN should result in a text data type because the string "RIN" is included in the value. It also provides options for leading zeroes so that the sorting will be consistent with that of the Rec# column. Neither "RIN" nor leading zeroes were included in the query I used on Jim's database.
As to the possible resetting of the Private flag, I note that they were inconsistent in the original REFNs Jim manually added. As I left these untouched, they may well be the ones that he is now discovering. I had provided him with two Named Groups with which he could check his prior work and my additions:
Regarding the creation of a group of Belangers, On the smaller version, RM finds 53,332 persons and Windows Task Manager reports RM using 648,048K. As Jim reports, having named the group, RM appears to be doing nothing. However, WTM reports that 50% of my dual processor AMD CPU is being used by RM with a small increase to 649,140K memory used and that the application is "Not responding". If left long enough, I suspect it might complete the task but, clearly, it is very inefficient and a real impediment to using RM with large databases. Ah, it did complete after about 13 minutes! (and this was on 126.96.36.199 on a Toshiba Win 7 notebook with 4GB RAM and AMD Turion II P540 2.4GHz dual core processor).
Jim, if it would be of help, I could re-do your REFN facts, all of them, except those you might flag as special, so that they all have leading zeroes and sort alphabetically in the same order as the Rec#.