w>John,
> Do you access this table, or is it just used to hold old data? The size is not really the problem, at least not yet. We keep an active table of some 8 million records, taking up 1.5 gigs. I run a loop to update it that compares the date to a date 6 months prior, and replaces the record if it is older than that with a new record. You could use the same type of scan, and move the record to another table. Several tables could be used, sequentially, to keep the data available, but it depends on the application accessing the data. The quickest fix would be to increase your disk size. You're not in any real trouble until you approach 2 gigs, which is the Fox limit. I would suggest the increase in disk space first, additional tables second.
> Brad

If this is just historical data that needs to be kept for the record and is not going to be updated, you could archive off to a CDROM. MOnthly, Quarterly, pick an interval you would archive off the records that had been untouched for the appropriate period. That way they would still be accessible, but would be change/delete proof. (Useful if there's a legal reason to keep them!)

Of course you should still get more disk space. MB, like MHz, are something you can never really have too many of -- you'll find something to fill them with. This is the computer corollory (Disk space acquires data to the point at which you no longer have quite enough space to run your apps.) to Murphy's Law of Horizontal Surface. (Horizontal surfaces accumulate items to the point at which you no loger have adequate workspace)

Jen
who is not related to Murphy!