cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Windchill folder structure best practice/Table size limit

KNielsen
7-Bedrock

Windchill folder structure best practice/Table size limit

 As per this thread, similar issue:

 

Hi, 

 

My organisation has the same structure. 

Context - Product line

- Sales part 

- Parts

- CAD

- Documents

 

But we have some products lines where the amount of parts is bigger than the Table size limit, which is already set to 10.000.

Do you have experiences with handling this?

I do not want to increase the Table size limit anymore.


Best regards 

Katrine Nielsen

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
bmr
17-Peridot
17-Peridot
(To:KNielsen)

I don't like folders anymore. Whenever it's possible I store the objects directly in the product. There is also a preference to disable the folder view on the left site.

The question is, do you work in one huge product or split it in to different modules library? Isn't that PTC's concept behind Product / Library?

Most customers I know are using few huge products and store anything in folders, but at the end they start "arguing" in which folder the part and documents are stored. Or even worse, they start storing it on the lowest level, because they don't know where to move them.

Another popular concept is to create folders for parts, cad, documents, change objects, etc. These are actually filters and nothing else.

There is no right or wrong. In early days I also had a huge folder structure in my mail account, but since gmails entered the market, I have no folders anymore and I search and don't navigate anymore. For me, the work is in vain to move the mails. I prefer to search.

That is also the reason, why I'm looking forward that Windchill improves finally the search. Solr isn't bad, but it could be much better! I would prefer a google like search to find everything and start filter afterwards. At the moment, the search is not yet very user-friendly and intuitive.

To come back to your question. I think setting the table size to 1000 or default 2000 is more than enough. 

 

View solution in original post

7 REPLIES 7
rhart
13-Aquamarine
(To:KNielsen)

We reduced the limit to 2,000 for performance.

What's the use case for 10,000 parts in a list on a webpage?

Show the users how to find what they want with search criteria, filters and collection, not scrolling up and down huge lists.

jvonzastrow1
14-Alexandrite
(To:KNielsen)

It is a good idea to not increase the table limit size. I would consider to even put it to 5000

Even with 5000 objects in the folder it is not easy for the user to browse. The recommendation is to global use search, Search in Table and/or created folder views. There are many folder views OOTB, You can create some that fit better for your use case. They can be shared with all users.

BenLoosli
22-Sapphire III
(To:KNielsen)

Most users have no need to see a complete folder and all of the files in that folder. 

Like the others have said, they need to use search lists and views to limit what is seen.

Thanks for your answers.

 

At the moment I do not have data quality that will be supported by views

We are considering to "clean up" the bigger folders, to reduce amount of parts.

But do you have any pros and cons on using e.g. either an Obsolete state or moving parts to an Obsolete folder? 

bmr
17-Peridot
17-Peridot
(To:KNielsen)

I don't like folders anymore. Whenever it's possible I store the objects directly in the product. There is also a preference to disable the folder view on the left site.

The question is, do you work in one huge product or split it in to different modules library? Isn't that PTC's concept behind Product / Library?

Most customers I know are using few huge products and store anything in folders, but at the end they start "arguing" in which folder the part and documents are stored. Or even worse, they start storing it on the lowest level, because they don't know where to move them.

Another popular concept is to create folders for parts, cad, documents, change objects, etc. These are actually filters and nothing else.

There is no right or wrong. In early days I also had a huge folder structure in my mail account, but since gmails entered the market, I have no folders anymore and I search and don't navigate anymore. For me, the work is in vain to move the mails. I prefer to search.

That is also the reason, why I'm looking forward that Windchill improves finally the search. Solr isn't bad, but it could be much better! I would prefer a google like search to find everything and start filter afterwards. At the moment, the search is not yet very user-friendly and intuitive.

To come back to your question. I think setting the table size to 1000 or default 2000 is more than enough. 

 

KNielsen
7-Bedrock
(To:bmr)

Just as I understand you correctly.

 

You are pro data "clean up" directly in the "big" folder, so we can filter out "old" parts?

 

And not use sub-folders? 

bmr
17-Peridot
17-Peridot
(To:KNielsen)

I'm pro "don't use folders". I would rather create more products/libraries and split the data. For sure there is no right/wrong but my experience is, that a folder structure normally don't work. Especially, if there are multiple options. And why create folders, if you can have filters?

If you have a lot old data you could also create an archive product for it. Or in this specific case create a subfolder and move the obsolete data in it.

Another important thought is, that if you have configured Windchill OOTB, every meta data change will create some worker jobs. So if you move data, it will lead to a lot overhead jobs.

Announcements