able', 'DelRecs' )
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Weller
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 16:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Index on Deleted()
I have an index on DELETED() in most of my tables. To check if a ta
On 2/15/07, John Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can only plead old age, poverty and temporary insanity.
Boy, can I relate! Glad I could help.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.
Paul Hill wrote:
> 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 ind
Hadn't thought of that - I'll investigate. Thanks Dave.
The purpose of the index is just to quickly find if a table needs packing as
there are functions which automatically delete records if the content falls
below a specified level.
John Weller
01380 723235
07976 393631
>
> John and others,
>
maybe this will get someone a bit
> closer to it.
>
> IIRC, Deleted() returns a .T. for the current record. Since you have no
> deleted records, you are doing a Seek(.F.)
>
> With an index on Deleted():
> with all records non-deleted, if you literally do a Seek(.F.), it alwa
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Index on Deleted()
>
>
> On 2/14/07, John Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ? SEEK(DELETED(), 'MyTable', 'DelRecs')
> >
> > is returning True - which is obviously wrong!
>
> Isn't the first ar
ge-
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 de
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
On a related note.
Is it still not a good idea to index on deleted() due
to performance issues over a network?
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list
John Weller wrote:
> I have an index on DELETED() in most of my tables. To check if a table
> needs packing I look for a deleted record using this index. When I look at
> a table with no deleted records I'm finding that the line:
>
> LOCATE FOR DELETED()
> ?FOUND()
>
On 2/14/07, John Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ? SEEK(DELETED(), 'MyTable', 'DelRecs')
>
> is returning True - which is obviously wrong!
Isn't the first argument the value you are supposed to be looking for?
If so, it should be .T. shouldn't it?
With your argument, it's evaluating DELETED
I have an index on DELETED() in most of my tables. To check if a table
needs packing I look for a deleted record using this index. When I look at
a table with no deleted records I'm finding that the line:
LOCATE FOR DELETED()
?FOUND()
returns False, whereas
? SEEK(DELETED(),
12 matches
Mail list logo