Referencing two tables in a slice

Hi! I’m wondering if there is a way to reference two tables in a slice. In our application, we have a Service Ticket table storing work orders and a Customers table storing customer info and information regarding equipment/assets on their sites. We have a New Ticket view/slice that a dispatcher uses to fill out the appropriate parts of a Service Ticket row in order to dispatch to a technician. We are trying to integrate the equipment stored in the Customer table such that it can be picked if a New Ticket is specific to a piece of equipment. In our case, we’d have to reference two different table to make this work (at least from what i can see and know). Is there a way to get around this?

Thanks,

Justin

Waw… kind of SLICE-UNION…

Very interesting for me to know the answer on this… Thanks for posting this.
:+1:

Nope. Though I’m curious what you mean by “reference two tables”. Include rows from two tables? Join rows from two tables? Neither is possible.

Darn! Want to be able to create a new work order in the Service Ticket table but be able to pick a piece of equipment found in the Customers table to service on the ticket.

Perhaps I don’t really understand what you mean by “referencing two tables in a slice”.

What you describe above is certainly doable. Presumably, a Service Ticket row would have a column that identifies the customer. Knowing the customer, we can find the customer’s row in the Customers table. Having the Customers table row, presumably we can get the/a piece of equipment.

Can you elaborate a little more on where you’re having difficulty?

Hi Steve, I think I got it. The Service Ticket row does reference the Customers table. I ended up adding a new column “Equipment to service” to the Service Ticket table. I set it to EnumList and put this in the Suggested Values box:

LIST([Customer name].[Gate 1 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 2 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 3 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 4 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 5 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 6 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 7 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 8 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 9 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 10 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 11 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 12 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 13 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 14 site reference name], [Customer name].[Gate 15 site reference name])

Seems to work and then we get service records tied to equipment at an address rather than just the address. Do you see anything inefficient with this setup?

1 Like

That looks fine, actually! It’s unfortunate you have to assemble such a large list, but it is what it is. Well done!

Thank you and thanks for the help!

1 Like