# Table Query Data

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/table-query-data/18351>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Created:** [June 7, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/table-query-data/18351 "2018-06-07T21:04:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dkhayes117](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/dkhayes117/32/68344_2.png) [@dkhayes117](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/dkhayes117)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/table-query-data/18351/1 "2018-06-07T21:04:53Z")

</div>

I have a script that runs from a property change…

```auto
po = event.source.value

data = system.db.runNamedQuery("BOM/PoDetails",{"po":po})

event.source.parent.getComponent('Table3').data = data

```

Will populating the table in this manner allow me to manipulate and change the table data without affecting the db data that was queried?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bfuson](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/bfuson/32/4597_2.png) [@bfuson](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/bfuson)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/table-query-data/18351/2 "2018-06-07T21:25:56Z")

</div>

Yes, the content of your Table’s onCellEdited extension function is the sole determinant of how edits will be processed. If you just update the component’s table data (as shown in the example script) without issuing an update query, your database table data will remain the same.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dkhayes117](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/dkhayes117/32/68344_2.png) [@dkhayes117](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/dkhayes117)\
**Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 12:07pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/table-query-data/18351/3 "2018-06-08T12:07:24Z")

</div>

That’s what I thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks!