Jump to content


Photo

Splitting a Database


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Neale

Brian Neale

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 June 2019 - 04:00 AM

My database is around 10,000 people. I am using the latest RM7.

 

I would like to split my single database into each of my wife's and my grandparents.

 

How is best to do this?

 

I will keep the combined family tree for my children.



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3482 posts

Posted 18 June 2019 - 06:17 AM

The best mechanical process is to create new and empty databases for each of your wife and for your grandparents, and then to use drag and drop to copy people from the existing combined database to the new databases as appropriate.

 

Drag and drop does not MOVE people. It COPIES people, so it does not remove anybody from your existing database.

 

Drag and drop initially has the look and feel as if you are dragging and dropping just one person, like it would take forever to accomplish your task because you might have to drag and drop one person at a time. But when you do the drag and drop, it will ask you if you wish to move just the one person or if you wish to move more than one person. The menu that pops up has lots and lots of options, like move all the ancestors of the person etc. It may take a while playing with it to figure out all the options just the way you want them but each drag and drop can copy many thousands of people all at the same time.

 

Having said all that, the best way to split your database is probably not to split it. Most experienced RM users recommend a single database. There are numerous advantages to a single database.

 

Jerry



#3 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1625 posts

Posted 18 June 2019 - 07:03 AM

Totally agree with Jerry.  One place to update,  as you can control the reports from your database for each family. I've worked both ways, and have kept just one Database for both sides. 


Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"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!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#4 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 18 June 2019 - 09:25 AM

I guess I'm one of the few as I have kept my databases separate and this was particularly useful when my wife retired  as she just took over 'her databases' that I had been researching. I find it easier to concentrate on the individual lines and a 'test combine' I tried a few years was a backward step for me and I gave up on it. 'Separate' all seems much clearer and easier to me.

If separate databases work for you i would say go with it   :-)



#5 Kamolga

Kamolga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 19 June 2019 - 02:37 AM

I would maybe consider the splits if it was like MS Project: there I can include sub-database (a smaller project in itself) into a bigger one, meaning that if I update a sub-database I will see it in my global one and I can update a sub database from my global database. It should be perfectly linked and increase my productivity. That being said, I do not split projects in MS Project because the sub-projects restart their record ID at 1 (you have multiple records with ID 1,2,3 in your global) and in practice, the split creates some more issues. The only case were I find it suitable is to have a few people managing their projects and to create a view with all of them...which I do not have in RM (and would not want to respect my consistency).

 

My quick tests with drag&drop were not really good (not same context at all): I created some shared events like godfather/godmother or shared residence(family) with children. If I would add people one by one, I would miss quite some shared facts, citations or even relationships sometimes (I think you have to be really careful to drag parents before siblings or some other good practices) and concluded that the checks needed after drag&drop were not worth the gain of time in my case.

 

I opted for 1 database and what you consider as 'split' for me is done by 'grouping'. Group is a very efficient way to filter and it is also how I would first split my database. Exporting a gedcom and creating a specific smaller database (to read or share) from a group is only a few clicks away: export, select the group, ok…and start a new database by importing gedcom. Export-import a gedcom has its disadvantages (losing info) but I try to input data in a way to reduce this loss.


Rootsmagic 7.5.9.0 with a lot of SQL queries (SQLiteSpy) and a bit of Family Historian 6.2 (tree view and map)


#6 keithcstone

keithcstone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 19 June 2019 - 04:58 AM

I agree on both points. Drag and drop to split, but the best course of action is not to.

#7 Brian Neale

Brian Neale

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 22 June 2019 - 03:02 AM

Thank you all for the responses.

 

I will keep to your suggestions and leave the one database.

 

I will start to create groups for each grandparent, though I cannot find a simple way of doing that, so it will take time.



#8 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3482 posts

Posted 22 June 2019 - 06:06 AM

Setting up groups for your grandparents should be a very quick process.

When you are making groups, there are a huge number of useful options on how to select people to go in the group. Most of the options allow you to select multiple people at the same time, perhaps dozens or hundreds or even thousands of people all at the same time. If you go into the Groups dialog, to make a new group you first click on the New button and it will take you into RM's marking dialog. From here, navigate to your grandparent of choice, click the Mark group button, and select the Ancestors of highlighted person option. You can then choose the Direct ancestors only option or the Ancestors and descendants of ancestors option. You can specify the number of generations of ancestors. If you choose the Ancestors and descendants of ancestors option you can also choose the number of descendants for each one.

You really do have to navigate to your grandparent of choice AFTER entering the Mark group dialog, even if you were already on that grandparent when you start the process. Being able to start on the person you are already on would be a very useful improvement to RM. You will need to create four groups, one for each grandparent. So upon completing the process of making a group for one grandparent, you will need to begin the process anew to create the group for each of the other three grandparents.

Groups do not update automatically if you add new people to your database who should be in the group. So you will periodically need to refresh your groups by running doing an Edit instead of a New on the groups to specify your marking criteria again. RM's users have much wished for a more automated way to refresh groups after adding people to your database.

 

Jerry



#9 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3385 posts

Posted 22 June 2019 - 06:51 AM

I would like to split my single database into each of my wife's and my grandparents.

 

Firstly I am an advocate on one single database and my database is now over 100K individuals (and there are larger ones), are they all family? NO, that is because all my main research names are unique enough to concentrate on as Name studies. I collect branches from different geographies and enter the data as I find it as I believe the place for any such data is within a single database. The reason or presumption for my way of working is that the eventual discovery of one new ancestor will quickly link and incorporate many of these presently fragmented branches. So what I have is many fragmented trees of the Surnames I study usually known as the ??? Geographic branch and they will all link back to UK, Ireland and Northern Europe someday, therein lies my challenge.

 

I often describe genealogy as a giant jig-saw puzzle that I will never finish, firstly I tip all the pieces onto the floor, get the corners, get the edge pieces, then start grouping by colour and pattern before starting to assemble. In genealogy terms that becomes Names & variants, Time Frames and Geographical location.

 

This is a completely different approach to just compiling your family tree unless you begin with the assumption these other families are connected someway, names like Simth & Jones would be out of the question for this approach. When I first began collecting information many years ago I found my self researching back a line and then coming forward in time again when a link was discovered, back and forth, back and forth sometimes remembering I had viewed a certain record years before and discounted it so I broke that method in favour of entering everything.

 

I picked up on a Facebook post yesterday which does show a current downside when it comes to trying to split a database such as mine for Ancestry upload. If I wanted to split out all the Eaglesons, Eggletons and other variant spellings I can easily do this. However within Rootsmagic I cannot include all the other connected individuals within those trees like spouses and children of a different surname. This would be useful if a user wanted to upload what they have on a family tree from a split out database and upload to Ancestry as a trawling exercise for new contacts and information but it's not possible at present.

 

Many users like some on this thread have increasingly wished for functionality to work with subsets of the database as if they were separate databases, we will wait and see if Rootsmagic feel that is a value added feature. Regardless of the direction of development it is still much better and easier to maintain one database as many crosses will likely become evident as your research grows.


“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” -Bill Gates

It's now time for discretion, trust, patience and support

 

User of Rootsmagic 7.5.9, Family Historian 6.2.7, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#10 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 June 2019 - 06:52 AM


Groups do not update automatically if you add new people to your database who should be in the group. So you will periodically need to refresh your groups by running doing an Edit instead of a New on the groups to specify your marking criteria again. RM's users have much wished for a more automated way to refresh groups after adding people to your database.

 

Jerry

If Groups worked well / as it should it might overcome one of my problems with a 'single database' - if its a 'problem solved' in RM8 I will look at it again :-)