>Well I don't work in a multiuser environment, just single user, and I don't
>work with tables that have 4 million records. I bet it takes a while to
>even re-index that monster. But I am guessing that whether it's good or bad
>design is solely based on who is using it, when and where.
>Take care,
>Steve

As I wrote, no pun intended. My message was purely ment as a warning, something like "even if you can do this, I strongly advise against it."

Personally I always keep in mind that I may sooner or later be forced to convert my applications to use a "real" SQL backend. And since SQL server does not have record numbers, any "natural" record order, or deleted records, I avoid depending on them. So I always let indexes control the order, and I always considered deleted records as gone forever, since SQL server will reuse deleted records completely out of my control. In fact I never delete records, in stead I have a fields called reusable which is set to .T. in stead of deleting the record.