Please show relationship in views filter even if not all databases in the view contain the relationship

I ran into this issue many times:
I create a view with many databases, and want to filter the view on a relationship to a particular entity.
When one of the databases set in the view does not have a relationship to the database of that entity, it does not show up as filter selection option. This forces me to add the filter to each individual database set in that view, which is cumbersome job for views with many databases set.

Just so I understand, you want to be able to see/define filters for multiple (but not all) databases used in a given view, using only a single setting?

Yes, correct. For example:

I want to set a global filter for the relationship ‘project’ but 50 % of the databases in the view have not relationship field to the project database. I want the global views filter to still show that field, apply the filter values and just not include the databases in the view that don’t have the relationship.

For Sort setting:
Sort by project: if the relation to project database is not present, still show the project database as sort value, and treat N/A value as zero, thus still showing all items in the view.

There does need to be some consideration of the possibility that multiple databases used in the view have fields with the same name but with different type/relation.
In such a case, it would be difficult for the sw to know which one you are referring to.

Let me share the ChatGPT output that I got on this. Does any of the following appear feasible?

Addressing the issue raised by Chr1sG in the Fibery community forum involves finding a way to handle situations where multiple databases in a view have fields with the same name but different types or relationships. This is a common challenge in database and user interface design, especially in flexible systems like Fibery. Here are some ideas to brainstorm solutions:

  1. Field Type Identification: Implement a system where each field is not only identified by its name but also by its type or relationship. This way, when a filter or sort is applied, the system can distinguish between fields with the same name based on their type.
  2. User Selection Interface: Provide an interface where users can explicitly select which field they are referring to when there’s ambiguity. This could be a dropdown or a similar selector that appears when the user sets a filter or sort criterion, allowing them to choose the correct field from the databases involved.
  3. Contextual Filtering: Develop a contextual filtering system that understands the context of each database and applies filters accordingly. For example, if a filter does not apply to a certain database due to field type mismatch, the system could automatically exclude that database from the filter.
  4. Advanced Query Builder: Offer an advanced query builder for power users. This tool could allow users to construct more complex filters and sorting rules, specifying exactly how different fields should be treated across databases.
  5. Default Behavior Settings: Allow users to set default behaviors for ambiguous cases. For instance, users could specify that in the case of a name conflict, the system should always prioritize a certain type of field, or follow a user-defined hierarchy of field types.
  6. Field Mapping and Aliasing: Implement a feature where users can create aliases or map fields across databases. This would allow users to define how fields with the same name but different types correlate or differ, guiding the system in applying filters and sorts.
  7. Feedback and Learning Algorithm: Integrate a feedback mechanism where the system learns from user choices in ambiguous situations and applies this learning to future instances, reducing the frequency of manual selection over time.
  8. Comprehensive User Documentation and Support: Ensure that there are clear instructions and support materials to help users understand how to use these filtering and sorting features effectively, especially in complex scenarios.
  9. Community Feedback and Beta Testing: Engage with the user community to get feedback on proposed solutions and conduct beta testing with real-world scenarios to refine the approach.
  10. Collaboration with Database Experts: Consult with database design experts or UI/UX specialists to explore innovative solutions that might not be immediately apparent.

Each of these solutions has its own set of advantages and challenges, and the best approach might involve a combination of several strategies. The key is to balance flexibility and power with user-friendliness and clarity, ensuring that the system remains accessible to a wide range of users while offering advanced capabilities for complex use cases.

I really don’t like such generic replies that adds almost zero new things to the conversations. If you try to apply these advices to Fibery context you might understand how useless they are.


@mdubakov I understand your point, but it did not sound very friendly to me.

I was actually happy to see point 1 and 2 of the output, which I already came up with myself, so definately for me not ‘zero new things’.

I myself as user find it helpful to include more GPT context as brainstorm material, although not too much indeed to keep the conversation focus.

I will take into account to better focus my answers.

I never try to be friendly, but honest. Look at this from a reader perspective, a reader will have to read all this to reply, and 80% of ChatGPT generated things is rubbish. If you want to help readers, you have to filter this, apply in the right context, produce some concrete ideas and only then share the result.

I personally have an urge to consider unfiltered ChatGPT replies as a spam. I am resisting so far, but just sharing my feelings.


@Yuri_BC To honor the limited time that we all have to read these posts, perhaps you could ask ChatGPT to phrase its responses as tersely as possible, and then you can also manually remove anything that is not truly substantive.


I will use your suggestions, thank you all. :+1:


Not to pile on, but I agree. It is clear @Yuri_BC that you are very smart and have a lot of interesting ideas and things to contribute. But your often-long messages start to get hard to understand and difficult to find the important elements in. If a lot that is sometimes coming from ChatGPT, that really seems unnecessary. Your own ideas and thinking are the best contribution here, I feel. :slight_smile:


Thanks @Oshyan for the compliments, I see I sometimes can get carried away too deeply in ai. and you are right long texts can be overwhelming and Im working on using my own language in shorter messages.