Pack everything - the SCX - the VCX - and 'hard' delete and 'hard' index those tags - and with that much data - everyonce in a while - it helps to sort the physical order to correspond with the logical order that handles the most demand.

Are you re-using deleted recno()s?

On the name -
Okay - has your UT name changed? I remember ..
... wavy lines - ~~~~~ retro scifi music . da de da da . da te da da ...
... a picture [focuses from a blurryness] of a girl [you] in a knit shawl,coat,hippie hair,frosty and foxy in Boston(?) working on some fancy smancy map system.

But name not sure same:-)


>Hi Terry,
>
>I don't think I was ever called Natalie <g> You would be the first. <g>
>
>I'm using a class based on Session class. So, everything is happenning inside separate DS, that's the only advantage of it.
>
>The RI is managed by database (we're using modification of Doug's Henning at all NewRI).
>
>I think I may try packing the tables, may be they are already slighlity corrupted. Also our tables have lots of indexes. Since we're inserting/changing records, the indexes are updated...
>
>Anyway, I really like to hear from MS on this issue. The only problem is to create a good test scenario. We can not expose our data easily...
>
>>So - if it's a data session DBF - all the referential integrity is managed by the DS, right?
>>
>>Does it error out on the server file?
>>
>>Does the DS have all the info it needs to accomodate the local dtat set.
>>
>>The last resort would be to copy the DBF's out of the DS - clean them up - and then move them into a fresh clean DS. IE - have one DS for the Server - one for local.
>>
>>Look at the DBF's when outside the DS if you can - compare them -s= somehour to the DS's DBFs.
>>
>>I thought I talked you out of the DS years ago - back when we called you Natalie!:-)
>>T