FM - Portal Not Showing When Related by Cell Phone
Office staff sometime enter duplicate Leads, so I created another TO and related it by Cell Phone Number (because sometimes the name is not always spelled the same). However, when I related by the Cell Phone (text) field, no records show up in the portal; however, when I related by any other field, such as first name, date, etc., records do show up in the portal. I even duplicated the last record just to ensure there was a matching cell phone number and still nothing shows. Any ideas why? I must be missing something obvious; I've done this numerous times before without a problem.
ASKER
rvfowler2
why not have the cell number be a unique field
then force the format to be (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Then if the staff tries to do a duplicate entry she gets an error message that the lead is already in the system
why not have the cell number be a unique field
then force the format to be (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Then if the staff tries to do a duplicate entry she gets an error message that the lead is already in the system
ASKER
Thanks, thought of that, but we have a 15,000 Leads db right now with numerous duplicates already. Not sure of a way around this. The weird part about this is if I do a Find, I do find the mulitiple records; however, when I connect them via a relationship, the portal comes up blank (but does not come up blank when relating to other fields to themselves). Weird.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Yes, something very strange here because I can also create two new tables and related them by phone number. I'll just have to play with it. This is the first time I couldn't get related records to show in a portal.
rvfowler2:
Double check your layout to make sure it is built on the right Table occurrence
Recheck your fields to make sure they are both the same type
Recheck your relationship to make sure it is a many to many
Double check your layout to make sure it is built on the right Table occurrence
Recheck your fields to make sure they are both the same type
Recheck your relationship to make sure it is a many to many
rvfowler2
I meant to say make sure it is NOT a many to many
but looking at your question it would have to be a many to many
That is the problem I believe
I meant to say make sure it is NOT a many to many
but looking at your question it would have to be a many to many
That is the problem I believe
ASKER
Layout is built on Leads
This is a self-referential table, so the fields have to be of the same type, since I'm relating the same field to itself between two TOs.
It's not many-to-many or the X relationship. The Relationship Graph above might not be clear, but it is an = or one-to-one.
I hadn't checked the above because, as I said above, I can relate other fields on the same layout and the portal works, just not with the Cell Phone field, which is a simple text field. Even when I duplicate the record, it won't show in the portal. Very strange.
This is a self-referential table, so the fields have to be of the same type, since I'm relating the same field to itself between two TOs.
It's not many-to-many or the X relationship. The Relationship Graph above might not be clear, but it is an = or one-to-one.
I hadn't checked the above because, as I said above, I can relate other fields on the same layout and the portal works, just not with the Cell Phone field, which is a simple text field. Even when I duplicate the record, it won't show in the portal. Very strange.
rvfowler2:
On a one to one it can only find itself
what would be the need of a portal?
On a one to one it can only find itself
what would be the need of a portal?
ASKER
Possibly I don't understand your terminology because it is related by Cell Phone to Cell Phone, not record to record, so technically, I guess that's not a one-to-only one relationship. That point is that something is wrong with the Cell Phone field as any other field I choose works in the portal, just not the Cell Phone field, even if I duplicate the record.
A one to one is one record matching one record
(since it is a table joined to itself) the record is itself so there is no reason to have a portal as the match is itself .
A one to many might be an agent and their notes
One agents has many notes, so a layout starting with an agent can show many notes in a portal
(since it is a table joined to itself) the record is itself so there is no reason to have a portal as the match is itself .
A one to many might be an agent and their notes
One agents has many notes, so a layout starting with an agent can show many notes in a portal
ASKER
Hopefully I'm not missing something obvious, but by relating cell phone to cell phone, I do get one record to match multiples just as if you did Town to Town. And, as I mentioned, I can relate by almost any other field on the layout and see duplicates. Strange.
Will look into cleaning up the db, but with 10,000 records, it will be tough sledding to get rid of all the duplicates Leads, especially since each one probably has several Customer Notes written for them.
Will look into cleaning up the db, but with 10,000 records, it will be tough sledding to get rid of all the duplicates Leads, especially since each one probably has several Customer Notes written for them.
rvfowler2
If you have a "table1" with a fieldx, then you create a new TO of this table "table2" and relate them by fieldx
You have a layout based on “table1”
Now you are on record 1 which has a 123 in fieldx
Record 4, 7 & 9 have 123 in fieldx
You want 4, 7 & 9 to show in a portal with record1
You have, if I recall, a 1 to 1 relationship
So when it finds a match it stops as it has the other side of the 1
Is my example above flawed?
thanks
Thom Droz
If you have a "table1" with a fieldx, then you create a new TO of this table "table2" and relate them by fieldx
You have a layout based on “table1”
Now you are on record 1 which has a 123 in fieldx
Record 4, 7 & 9 have 123 in fieldx
You want 4, 7 & 9 to show in a portal with record1
You have, if I recall, a 1 to 1 relationship
So when it finds a match it stops as it has the other side of the 1
Is my example above flawed?
thanks
Thom Droz
ASKER
Actually, the only thing that is truly a 1-to-1 relationship is a unique field such as a RecordNo field. I figured out the issue by comparing the CellPhone field with the other fields that worked. It simply was that the CellPhone field was not indexed, and, as you see in the screen print below, the text says that indexing "supports functionality like Relational Joins.' So, I guess, a field needs to be indexed for the join to work. Once I did this, all records that had the same cell phone number appeared in the portal.
-IndexingistheAnswer.JPG
-IndexingistheAnswer.JPG
ASKER
Thom, gave you partial credit because the answer was indeed to fix the issue rather than find a workaround.
rvfowler2
Thanks, if you need tips on how to find and fix duplicates post here and I am sure you will get some interesting solutions!
Thanks, if you need tips on how to find and fix duplicates post here and I am sure you will get some interesting solutions!
ASKER