Field groups for thematic division of large database

08-20-2021 06:41 AM
Status: Open
Labels (1)
Regular Contributor

Allow for the possibility to aggregate fields to thematic groups, which would help to increase efficiency when working with large database structures containing many fields (100+). In case of such large databases there are always more fields, which can be thematically grouped according to their contents, type etc. Such thematic groups of fields would significantly improve visual clarity and comprehensibility of database structure and speed when working with big tables throughout the entire working process (e. g. locating group of fields, hiding, moving or sorting group of fields etc.). 


@JurajKrumpolec is this idea about creating some sort of grouping at the database level, or is it about visualizing groups of fields say in an attribute table, fields view, attributes pane, etc.?

Do you have any screenshots to share about what you're working with and what you would like to see?  Thank you!


@KoryKramer I meant it at database level (when designing the database) and subsequently (as you write) the user can work with such groups in attribute table, fields view etc. But there could also be the possibility to modify or create user specified groups in individual project regardless of the database level for customization of the working process.

I don't have any screenshot, I have only some excel designs (not in English). But for example, when I do urban structure analysis (in one feature class), the fields can be divided in these thematic groups:

  1. basic identification data
  2. administrative data
  3. historical development
  4. structural analysis and synthesis
  5. urban limits
  6. urban economy and demography
  7. urban design (proposal)
  8. infrastructure data
  9. data sources, etc.

Each group contain for example about 15-30 fields. With so many fields the structure of the database becomes confusing and the work with each field individually is very tedious and time consuming.


Thank you for the clarification!