John and others, Why not use the "for deleted()" expression in the index to create a filtered index.
That way you get the smallest index size as one would assume that the number of deleted records are always minimal in comparison to the main "live" records and maximum performance which far outweighs the inability to use Rushmore in filtered indexes. I have used this method for many years with no problems. When you need to find a deleted record the index data transferred is minimal over the Lan and the index is not bloated from useless live records. After all the reason for having a deleted index is only to find deleted records to re-use. Obviously the efficiency of this method drops the higher percentage of deleted records are present but I normally keep this to less than 5% if possible and reuse records whenever possible. Dave Crozier -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hill Sent: 15 February 2007 09:12 To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: Index on Deleted() On 2/15/07, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a related note. > > Is it still not a good idea to index on deleted() due > to performance issues over a network? I would agree. The new VFP9 bit indexes should help though. -- Paul [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
