Search for content in message boards

Basic Question

Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 4:47AM GMT
Classification: Query
When starting to build trees for the first time, is it best to make two separate trees for my parents? One for my mom's "side" (her maiden name) and one for my dad's (my maiden name)?
I don't want to build two trees and then find out I should have put them together or done it a different way.
Thanks for your help!

A Newbie

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 7:04AM GMT
Classification: Query
My strong advice is one tree.

Why?

When you run an ancestor report or chart for say your children, all their parents, grandparents, great grandparents are available.

All your marriage, parentage and kinship reports will be complete and not half truncated.

If you do a split tree (his and hers) then you also have the additional hassle of keeping two trees synchronised.

With a single tree you can have a single online Ancestor member tree with all your ancestors.

It is dead easy to extract any line out of FTM as a report, chart or file should you need to do so.

Also read this article on the FTM knowledge base

http://ftm.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2271/kw/more...

To me the jury is back one tree, but others may have different opinions


John D

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 10:50AM GMT
Classification: Query
I should note that the knowledge base article I have linked was written before the FTM 2008~2012 versions but I think the arguments still hold. I don't think there is a later article on the topic?

John D

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 3:17PM GMT
Classification: Query
There is one other reason. When I started my database I thought my parent's family had no connections, after all they were from from two rural areas north and south of the city.

It did not take long to find there had been marriages between the two families, some a generation before my parents.

As they say "love has no bounds" which can have effects on your database.

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 10:02PM GMT
Classification: Query
Keep your (and your children's families) in one tree if at all possible. I had to split my trees in the way you suggest due to FTM cannot handle the amount of information gathered, and now my children cannot have one report or chart that has all of their ancestors in it.

Regards,

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 10:28PM GMT
Classification: Query
"FTM cannot handle the amount of information gathered"

Can you elaborate?

What metrics are you talking about?

I would be very surprised if FTM cannot cope with any amount of data.

John D

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 10:57PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 25 Mar 2013 10:58PM GMT
My file was 2GB in version 2006 and was limited by the Windows 2GB file size limit. That file cound not be imported into FTM 2008 due to out of memory issues with FTM.

Split files between my family and my wife's and files have grown to 65,000+ persons; 1,900,000 records; 49,600 images (mostly census, military records, Newspapers, DAR/SAR records) between the two files. Over 70GB of data. Files grow each day by 30 - 60 new sources/images each day. The current version of FTM is seriously limited by file size and out of memory issues.

TMG (1994 era database) can handle the information without issue, unfortunately, TMG does not link directly with Ancestry.com.

regards,

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 11:11PM GMT
Classification: Query
I have a cousin with more than 120,000 people in his tree who uses FTM 2010 or 2011, I don't remember which - not the latest version. His online tree is showing more than 54,000 records, so less than you quoted. I don't know how many he has in this FTM tree.
His seems to work OK for him. He keeps both his FTM tree and his online tree updated manually.

Barbara

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 11:24PM GMT
Classification: Query
"My file was 2GB in version 2006 and was limited by the Windows 2GB file size limit. That file cound not be imported into FTM 2008 due to out of memory issues with FTM.

Split files between my family and my wife's and files have grown to 65,000+ persons; 1,900,000 records; 49,600 images (mostly census, military records, Newspapers, DAR/SAR records) between the two files. Over 70GB of data. Files grow each day by 30 - 60 new sources/images each day. The current version of FTM is seriously limited by file size and out of memory issues"

I think you need to understand the difference between the way FTM 2008 through to FTM 2012 (and also FTM for Mac ) handle media compared with FTM 16 and earlier.

FTM 16 and earlier embedded the media into the file. This radidly bloated the file if it mad many images.

Taking your 49,600 images. If they are say 2 MB each then the file size is going to increase in FTM 16 or earlier assuming a 10:1 compression (the approx default in FTM 16) by about 10 GB. This would stress any program on a PC.

FTM now links the media, so again with your 50,000 or so images, the links are less that 1 KB each plus a small thumbnail so the file overhead would be less that 1 MB if that. A big difference from 10 GB. ie about 10,000 times smaller!!!

I agree that your large FTM 16 file would have needed to be split to bring it across to FTM 2008 or later, but once this was done with the linked media methodology, FTM 2008 or above eg FTM 2012 will handle much much bigger files as media bloat is no longer an issue and hasn't been for the last 6 years.


I just want to clarify this so that people on this list are not misled with what I think are some confusing statements.

John D

Re: Basic Question

Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:12AM GMT
Classification: Query
There is no confusion. I fully know how the new version of FTM uses media versus the old program. Ancestry finally acted on my suggestion from the old version to (1) keep the actual media file separate from the datafile (I can now link my 120MB PDF files now); (2) to be able to link one source citation & media to many facts rather than duplicating the source for each fact. 1994-era database programs (FoxPro for example)can handle datasets much larger than my small FTM files without issue.

Time has passed since version 2008 and my initial splitting of the file. The two data files that resulted from the import into 2008 have grown separately and are now about 180,000KB each for the data-portion only. The current version of FTM cannot handle the 2 split files by themselves, let alone attempting to merge them again (which fails due to "out of memory errors" from FTM.) Creating a book is also almost impossible (as it was in 2006) as the program runs out of memory due to FTM's method of creating the reports/books yet TMG (FoxPro-based) can handle the imformation without issue as noted above and is much faster.

If you've used FTM you probably know that the program consumes memory like a vacuum. Open your Media tab and scroll through the images. Note how much RAM is consumed while FTM attempts to cache all of the thumbnails (for speed) and finally run out of memory.

So, should one keep all of their data in one data file, I'd say yes if at all possible. I now am maintaining 4 additional files on related trees/persons because FTM is too limited in its current version.

Regards,
per page

Find a board about a specific topic