> Gil was smart to switch to an actual database server and lose the > limited solution.
Why, thank you, Ed. I should note for our FoxHead compadres that it was due to your influence and multi-repeated suggestions/insistence at times, that I even started seriously looking for a VFP back end replacement. Although I could see a need for moving to a more scalable solution at some time, with a perfectly working all VFP solution I was content to bide my time. Folks, it was Ed who took the time to point out some viable options (at that time MySQL had several advantages over PostgreSQL - but that has changed). So we undertook the cutover, blended with a Linux platform cut-over tossed in for good measure <g>. Ed busted his arse on that project, and I watched in amazement at his handi-work in this new world he was diving into, and dragging me behind him. As nice as the MySQL cut-over worked, my heart was more into not having to find a way to skirt the commercial Server license issue, so we never did launch the MySQL project into the commercial world. The VFP version is still rocking strong, but a replacement PostgreSQL solution is going to be needed just over the horizon. I am truly indebted to you (literally also) for your guidance and direction. The stubborn student actually listened, but he just happened to take a few years to do something about it when the VFP file capacity issues in VFP finally reared its ugly head and roared <g>. We knew this day would come, and I spent years preparing for it with RDBMS evaluations, getting more "real" Servers, and preparing for a both a Linux and Windows Server OS platform to choose from (go Linux!). I am very comfortable with this new direction. Now to pull in more Linux and a dab of Dabo & Python <g>... Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Leafe > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VFP and PostgreSQL used to process FTC DoNotCall updates > > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote: > > > I don't know if you thought of this, but partitioning up that kind > > of data > > in multiple VFP tables should be pretty easy. E.g. 1st digit of area > > code. > > Then write stored procedures to use for various update/retrieval > > calls to > > determine which table needs to be hit in a specific circumstance. > > And for > > cross-table queries, UNION results (since the structure of the > > tables would > > be identical). > > > Easy? Sounds more like a hack. > > Gil was smart to switch to an actual database server and lose the > limited solution. > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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.
