I posted this recently under a question that had been marked "answered"...so I'm not sure if people see my post...and therefore I'm posting anew. I apologize if this is being seen twice.
The thread I had tried to respond to discussed when to use more than one SDB file, which to me implies that using separate SDB files might be a common workflow. But since two can't be opened at once, how does one then combine the SDBs later so that all info can be displayed. For example, we are using one SDB to house existing utilities on a densely-utilitied urban project...and another to house our proposed storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and relocated utilities (gas, water, etc.). But how then do we display both existing and proposed utilities in the same (drainage) profile?
Thanks for any guidance,
Steve
There is currently no command in the product to merge SDBs.
If you need to display data from separate SDBs in a profile, it will have to be an alignment profile (or a network profile that created an alignment when it was placed). You can display the drainage data in the alignment profile, then open the second SDB and display that data in the profile.
I'm not very adept with database stuff, but seeing as the S&S stuff is really only a database, is there a way to merge the database in Access or something and then open it in S&S? Might be worth a shot (but make a copy first!).
Thank you Kevin (above) and Jason for your initial replies. I've had the Microsoft Access notion in my back pocket as a last resort so I will look into that and post the result here...as it seems it may come to that!
Regarding the workflow Kevin suggested. I did some trials on that today and there is some opportunity there, though still flawed. This is what I tried:
For discussion purposes, I have SDB "P" (proposed storm, sanitary, utilities) and SDB "E" (existing storm, sanitary, utilities). My basic need is to display profiles along the proposed storm system and have all crossed items display, whether existing/proposed or a "drainage" item in S&S (storm, sanitary) or a "utility" in S&S (water, gas, electric, telephone, fiber, etc.).
I can take these steps:
1. With SDB P open, use Create Profile (Network) From [Structure X] to [Structure Y] with "Network" toggled as the Drainage Network Reference and an Alignment entered that will be an ALG created along the network path when the profile is displayed. Say the ALG is "Test 1".
2. Ignore the drainage profile just created, use Create Profile (Roadway) along alignment Test 1; this will be coincident to the desired drainage path.
3. Use Create Profile (Network) with same from/to structures but now with "Existing Profile" toggled as the Drainage Network Reference; tag the Test 1 roadway profile. This successfully sends all the info (storm/san/utils) from SDB P to the profile window. Check!
4. Now I need to get the existing SDB info on same profile. Open SDB E. Use Create Profile (Network) with "Existing Profile" toggled. PROBLEM arises: have to give From/To network structures, but the content in the SDB E has different connections. Can workaround by (a) selecting unrelated structures that span the range needed to be covered in the Structure X to Structure Y range of Step 1 above, or (b) creating, if necessary, a fake network to span this range. Tag the Test 1 roadway profile. This sends all the info from SDB E to the profile window but PROBLEM arises: the info is projected when all that is desired is the crossed features. Only workaround I can think of is to create a fake network that matches path of Structure X to Structure Y...so projection becomes 0 and all features are in fact crossed features. But this amounts to basically replicating the proposed network...and at that point would be better to be able to just merge the SDBs, which comes back to my original question! (Ugh)
If there's something I'm missing here, please let me know.
A petition to Bentley: I have been using S&S since late 1990's -> there has been the functionality to create utilities all that while, but all that while there has been a deficiency in the ability to display the S&S features conveniently. Without complications as described above, it should be a single step to have a Roadway profile include crossed or projected S&S items (both drainage and utility items) OR to have a network profile display crossed utilities. There must be something preventing the programmers from solving this? I realize the other school of thought/possibility is to use DTM features for utility work, but why then have this in S&S at all?
Thanks all for any further guidance... I'll look into Microsoft access combining and report any luck.
-Steve
Update: It does seem to be possible in Microsoft Access 2010 (the version we use) to copy the Inlets entries from one SDB to the other, the Areas to Areas, Manholes to Manholes, etc. But the resulting file is incompatible to attach back to InRoads...therefore we can't yet check if the method really works. I'm going to try to find an older version of Access (SDB files appear to use Access 95 format) and try that way, and will post the result here.
So far lesson learned is: one SDB per project!
MS Access can only convert back through a limited number of versions, and I've never a way to overcome Bentley's use of a legacy Access version.
Thanks for your thoughts Kate. My research indicates back-saving to Access 95 is a difficult proposition. I have tracked down and purchased a legacy version of Microsoft Office w/ Access 95. I'll receive that later this week and then attempt to combine the SDBs in Access. I'm hoping it's that simple - we'll see!
Well, remarkably it looks like we have been able to stitch together our SDBs using Microsoft Access 95! I'm not sure if we're allowed to acknowledge vendors on Be Communities, but I located the vendor oldsoftware.com and purchased a copy of Microsoft Office 95 from them - it was delivered within 3 days of placing the order. I installed it on a 2006-era personal laptop of mine - it installed with no issues (I did "custom install" and only installed Microsoft Access, not the rest of the Office suite).
We had 3 SDBs we needed to combine to one....but it would seem to be the same workflow for 2 SDBs or more: Open 2 instances of Access at one time, open one SDB in each. Copy info one Table at a time from SDB "A" to SDB "B". If you have more than 2 to combine, close SDB "A", open SDB "C" and copy from "C" to "B". Repeat as needed. I'm attaching a screenshot describing the process for copying a table (Pipes, Manholes, etc).
Starting Monday, we are going to work with our new combined SDB to make sure it is operating properly, but early indications are it is going to work. If it does, and it is as easy to combine them as it seems....it does open the door to working with multiple SDBs during development so long as you retain a legacy copy of Access 95 on hand for the combining.
Merging SDBs has become an important part of our workflows. We're using Office 2007 and can open the SDBs with MS Access and copy tables (Access 95 not required). It's important to NOT allow Access to upgrade the database to a newer format (counter to what it recommends when prompted). Also remember to copy/append the records in the IDs table. One word of caution when using Access to copy/append tables; duplicate IDs when merged can become a serious problem. It's important for the users to strategically name all elements to avoid duplicate IDs after the merge.
I've developed an in-house tool to more efficiently merge the SDBs using VBA, eliminating the need to use Access. I'd highly recommend reaching out to a developer to create a tool to automate the process, for sake of both efficiency and quality. We're merging up to 20 SDBs at a time on large projects in less than a minute.
Thanks for the insight, Chris...I've always worked in a single SDB so we found ourselves embarking on the multiple SDBs without a good strategy, whereas you seem to have that covered with your Office 2007 and VBA automation.
FYI we have Office 2010 and attempts to manipulate (without upgrading) were not successful for us, though perhaps we didn't pursue it thoroughly enough. Do beware if you transition from 2007 to 2010 you may find roadblocks.