Rick Schummer wrote: > Ken, > >>> Using old-fashioned Fox, I do the expedient thing and create a unique > index on *just that value* spin through the table, and populate the new > structures.<< > > When you note "unique" indexes I have to think you are referring to the old > 2.6 concept of unique indexes, not primary or candidate keys. It is by > design and documented that the old unique indexes only record the first > instance of an index and skip the other records that eventually are > duplicates. FoxPro unique indexes are not.
That is exactly what I was trying to do -- use it in the old-fashioned way. I was de-dupping a non-normalized table. (The old database had addresses -- the same addresses -- in 3 places -- I'm trying to eliminate the dups and create new PKs for the new tables. Yes, I know what "unique" means in a FP context -- it isn't a primary or candidate key. But f you look at my note again, it was *not* always selecting the "first instance of an index and skip the other records" -- it selected #91 and #93, but it skipped right over #92. I just wondered if anyone else had experienced such a strange behavior. OTOH, probably nobody (else) uses those old techniques any more. Ken _______________________________________________ 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 Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4b949a37.4050...@information-architecture.com ** 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.
