The whole idea of indexing on deleted() was to speed things up.
If it doesn't speed things up, then you might as well remove the
tag anyway.
--- Jean Laeremans <laeremans.jeanmarie .at. skynet DO.T be> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:00:33 -0400, you wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I'm a hands on man by nature..so oc i tried it out not long
> after the
> Advisor article came out and in my experience it isn't as
> clearcut as
> you put it.
> On a 10MB nw at the time with tables ranging from a few 1,000
> to
> 1,500,000 rec. the results where at least confusing.
> Tried it with no deleted rec in the table, a lot of them etc..,
> closed
> fox after each try
> Test where simple Selects which did bring a lot , a few or only
> one
> rec over the wire.
> All i could conclude is that it made not much of a diff. either
> way
> beneath 400,000 rec.
> BTW are you sure FOx doesn't do his usual Rushmore trick behind
> the
> scenes ? (ie creating a temp index when non is available)
> In fact your logic is faultless but i didn't see it in real
> life...
>
> A+
> jml
>
>
> > http://leafe.com/
> > http://dabodev.com/
> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2004 Michael Madigan |
