Built in search limited to table / column?

AppSheet AppSheet Q&A
1

Hi, i’m unsure on functionality limitations and would appreciate a confirmation. I’m just finishing an app and have come across a need to have different filter options for different slices / views. It seems the search option is set at table / column level and cannot be an expression. Therefore we have to use the same search columns in all views and all slices relating to a given table?

2

You’re correct that in AppSheet, the built-in Search function applies at the table/column level and cannot be customized per slice or per view using expressions. This means that all views and slices of a given table will use the same searchable columns. However, there are some solutions depending on your specific needs:

Solution

1. Use User Settings for Dynamic Search Filters

  • You can create a User Settings table where users select a filter option.
  • Then, in each slice or view, reference this setting using expressions in the Row Filter Condition.

2. Create Virtual Columns with Conditional Data

Instead of making all columns searchable, you can create virtual columns that concatenate data dynamically based on conditions.
Example:
IF([View] = “Orders”, [Order Number] & " " & [Customer Name], [Product Name] & " " & [Category])

  • Then, mark this virtual column as searchable instead of the original fields.

3. Use Different Tables for Different Views

  • If your app’s structure allows, you can duplicate tables and have different search settings per table.
  • Use slices and security filters to control what data appears.

4. Custom Search UX with Input Fields

  • Create a separate search input field and use it in slices or filtered actions.
  • Example: A user enters a term in a form, and an action button applies a filter to show only matching rows.

Would any of these solutions work for your scenario? Let me know what specific views and filters you’re trying to apply

1 Like
3

Thank you for the comprehensive response. Some food for thought there, however i’m not yet sure of the final search requirements so won’t ‘build’ anything until then. I was hoping I was wrong and it was a simple tick box exercise to rationalise the searches further. Thanks again.