Configuration of 1 table to multiple tables

Michael_Coffee

I fear I've discovered a dilemma that will bite us down the road if there isn't a solution (which I fear may be the case).

With configurations, you have the option to use one table, or more than one. If you use one table, it can quickly cascade into a lot of rows and columns. To condense it, you start with adding those different options in multiple tables as needed. However, what can you do if the table already exists and one column needs to be put into its own table?

Case in point: I have a plate that's configured with two columns: length and width. I realized it would be easier to have thickness also variable with the same shape, and wanted to separate it into three tables: long side, short side, and thickness. However, one column has four unique values. Is it possible to separate that column into a table by itself without altering the model's configuration relationships?

When I did it manually, it lost all of its data, because I had to delete the column in the table in order to make it in a different table. Luckily, the plate itself only existed in one assembly so far, but if I hadn't caught that early, 9 months from now, I would have been hurting >.>

Michael_Coffee

I take it no one has a solution? =(

I'm already encountering problems with a panel we have, but thankfully I have all of the part numbers out of that model.

john_mcclary

There is no "one click" option. but you shouldn't have to lose your data..

you can copy your table, then paste it into a spreadsheet.


then create your configurations, link up the dimensions, then paste the old column into the new table

owen_sparks

Not sure I quite follow. 

Are you saying if you change the way you've specified your configs by adding or changing tables then it breaks assemblies that call the configured part?

If your assembly is in a separate document from the configured parts then you'll be inserting from a version of the part document. 

Therefore you can change the part config parameters and up rev the part document. 

Any new assemblies can use the new version of the part document, but the old existing docs can continue to use the version they are compatible with, they won't break unless you chose to update the links.

Is any of that what you're describing?

Owen S.

john_mcclary

I believe what he is saying is, when you need to un-configure a dimension, It deletes the old config column. so that old data was lost.

That is where making a backup of the old table with the copy command will prevent that

owen_sparks

Ah

Thanks @john_mcclary

Michael_Coffee

@john_mcclary

It's not so much about losing data (thankfully I didn't have a lot to begin with), but if I'm trying to move a column into a different table, I have to delete it first before I'm allowed to configure the feature in the other table. By doing so, I lose the original reference information that is called out in my drawings, and I have to redo them as a consequence of it.

@owen_sparks

The answer to your first question is yes, it can break in your assemblies (and will most of the time). The version at that time, while yes, it might be needed, we are trying to make the model be more customizable than before. As a result, when we try to split up a table into two or more, it's not liking it.

Take for example a square panel with a row of holes near the four edges going all the way around (assume each row is unique, so they don't share an end hole). Excluding the option of no holes showing in the arrangement, I have 16 combinations to the configuration. If I add another row of holes to the panel below the first set (so another 4 rows), I have 64 combinations. Let's also say those holes can be turned into slots, so now 128 minimum. You get where I'm going.

When I realized this problem, I knew I needed to make lists from these combinations, but the table already existed with about 6 combinations. If we had continued, the table would only have gotten bigger and more convoluted. Once we made them into lists, we might have say 5 tables, but can cover all of those combinations and then some if we add more tables.

When I have a moment, I'll get some screen shots to show an examble what we had to deal with and what we made afterward.

john_mcclary

It shouldn't break any geometry... (he says without testing...)

But yes, you will need to select the new config in a drawing, or any higher reference when you refactor something.