Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Garrett Fitzgerald
On 7/21/06, Vince Teachout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just pulled that example out of my head to give a quick answer this morning. If you only need a temp index, I honestly can't think of anything that couldn't be done better with a SELECT DISTINCT. JMHO. Update the underlying table, f

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Vince Teachout
Peter Cushing wrote: That means Ted has alice, carol and sue all to himself, the lucky bleeder ;-) BOTH Sues (twins) actually. The bastard. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Vince Teachout
Richard Kaye wrote: There's one minor exception, imho. It may be useful as a temporary index built at runtime as needed. Throw it away when you don't need it anymore and certainly don't depend on its accuracy for anything other than the current task. Of course, there are many other ways to acc

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Vince Teachout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Vince Teachout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delete the "bob" row BROWSE * oops! we have NO "bob!" INDEX on fname TO crap unique && Let's rebuild the index - that will fix it, right? BROWSE * oops! we have NO "bob!" Unique = BAD If you set order to 0 and browse, ar

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Richard Kaye
There's one minor exception, imho. It may be useful as a temporary index built at runtime as needed. Throw it away when you don't need it anymore and certainly don't depend on its accuracy for anything other than the current task. Of course, there are many other ways to accomplish a filtered vi

RE: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Jim Winter
> If you set order to 0 and browse, are all the bob's gone? They shouldn't be because only the first Bob is in the index. Regards, Jim ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-fre

RE: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread stephen . russell
> From: Vince Teachout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Delete the "bob" row > > BROWSE > * oops! we have NO "bob!" > > INDEX on fname TO crap unique && Let's rebuild the index - that will > fix it, right? > BROWSE > * oops! we have NO "bob!" > > Unique = BAD If you set order to 0 and browse, are all the bo

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Peter Cushing
Vince Teachout wrote: SET DELETED ON Create a table, Names with field fname c(10) INSERT INTO Names (fname) values("bob") INSERT INTO Names (fname) values("bob") INSERT INTO Names (fname) values("bob") INSERT INTO Names (fname) values("alice") INSERT INTO Names (fname) values("carol") INSERT INT

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-21 Thread Vince Teachout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having a discussion with other developers and I found an index on a free table that was UNIQUE. Perhaps it's left over from Fox 2.x days, but I'm trying to remember why I've got this memory that it was a "no-no" and to be avoided? I'm trying to find a copy of HackFox

Re: Unique indexes are bad because why again?

2006-07-20 Thread Jean Laeremans
On 20 Jul 2006 19:49:09 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Having a discussion with other developers and I found an index on a free table that was UNIQUE. Perhaps it's left over from Fox 2.x days, but I'm trying to remember why I've got this memory that it was a "no-no" and to