3 Replies Latest reply on Dec 15, 2015 1:54 PM by larrymc

    DxDatabook tables and schematic partitions - should they match?

    larrymc

      I am preparing to use DxDatabook to take advantage of its features going forward.   All of our current designs have symbols in two large partitions (named FC and USL).    However, I’d like DxDatabook to be better organized (i.e. resistors, capacitors, diodes, ICs, etc)

       

      My question is multi-part:

       

      Can several DxDatabook libraries point back into one or two partitions?  i.e. can I have Resistors, Capacitors, ICs, all pointing back into the USL partition?

       

      More importantly – can I create new partitions and simply move copies of the existing symbols into the new partitions?   What will that do to existing schematics?  Can I simply adjust the settings to point to the new partitions?

       

      My first inclination is to create new partitions that are organized  and simply move the existing symbols into them, but I do not know the consequences for existing schematic designs.

       

      Thanks in advance for suggestions and guidance!

        • 1. Re: DxDatabook tables and schematic partitions - should they match?
          charles.ietswaard1

          Larry,

           

          It is important to understand that the way you organize your library and the way you organize the DxDatabook database are two  separate things, although they are strongly connected and it is much easier if you organize them in the same way,

           

          The tables/entries  that show up in the DxDatabook Window, are derived from the DxDatabook database. If you have different tables for the different 'libraries' you want to show in DxDatabook, then you can point directly to the table.

          If you have only one or two tables( FC and USL) you have to use queries to get the different categories of components.

           

          In your case I would not change the partitions in the Library (As long as this is fine for you). I would create a DxDatabook database with two tables ( FC and USL), each table carrying the properties that you require.

          Then create queries to get the required components out for your DxDatabook libraries and use the queries to create the DxDatabook configuration.

           

           

          Regards, Charles

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: DxDatabook tables and schematic partitions - should they match?
            robert_davies

            Larry,

            As Charles indicated in your case it is probably better to leave the partitions as they stand, if you re-arrange the partitions to support DataBook it will have consequences for existing designs, though new designs would not be affected. This is down to the alias associated with the symbols in the design which is the library partition pointer. Unfortunately there is no easy way to reset this alias in an existing design to point to the new location in the library and this has consequences for packaging and symbol update.

            Rob

            1 of 1 people found this helpful
            • 3. Re: DxDatabook tables and schematic partitions - should they match?
              larrymc

              Thank you Charles and Robert!   

              I think our ultimate answer will to be to do both.   For existing designs we will create the DxDatabook with two tables as Charles suggests and thus avoid any unforeseen consequences with existing designs.  We will not touch the partitions.

              For new designs in the future, we will create new partitions (symbol libraries) that are categorized and match new DxDatabook tables.  

              We want to organize DxDatabook as cleanly as possible for the new designs so that it will be a solid and stable foundation.   We intend to integrate this data with the rest of the corporate infrastructure (accounting and manufacturing) so we think it’s worth the effort at this point.

              Again, thanks for the insight.  It’s helpful to get expert advice as we make these fundamental changes to the way we organize our product data.   It looks like I have my Christmas work cut out for me.

              Regards,

              Larry