Reorder Field Names?

[Erik Mueller-Harder]

Ken Ray wrote:
 
> In a "full record view" you're right, and that is how I'm displaying
> it. The problem is it is in a "list view" where the user can set the
> column order himself, and the default display is to show Name,
> Company, Phone 1, Phone1 Label, Phone 2, Phone 2 Label. It *has* to
> be this way as this is intended for speedy access by users who need
> to see two phone numbers for each person in a list to prevent them
> from having to open a "full record view" to get at Phone #2...

Not sure, Ken, why you're seeing such a large speed difference between getting data from one base object and getting it from two base objects in a 1:M relationship.

I have one application where I retrieve one field from a "person" record and then get related information from *four* different related base objects for display in just such a list view as you describe.  The displaying of this data is very, very fast -- and it changes *on the fly* as the user types filtering criteria.  I type 60 words per minute, and the display *almost* keeps up with me when I type my fastest.

Perhaps there's something you can do to fine-tune your SQL selection (e.g., don't use "select *" unless you really need all or most of the fields) or your cursor manipulation (e.g., use indices rather than field names)....

I'd definitely go with Ruslan's advice regarding the database structure, though:  limiting yourself to a certain number of "phone" (or "email" or "web" or even "address") fields can lead to a product that is almost impossible to extend or update in the long run.

HTH,

Erik