Walter,

We do have a large table that contains medical information that is constantly in-use and difficult to pack. It has many deleted record and before we added the DELETED() tag it took 10-15 seconds for a lookup, but when we added it,
it sped up the lookup to about 3 seconds. But of course all of the springs started flying out of the rest of the program.

So as a quick fix, we deleted the DELETED() tag so that rushmore wouldn't return a filtered set. But the users are complaining about speed, and the deleted() tag did the trick.

We're currently reworking the app so we can use the tag without it blowing up.
Thanks for the input though, I will go back and read up on that thread just
FMI.


>Ed,
>
>>Hey! I'm one of VisFox's biggest fans. But our app was about to be released and was working great, then we went in and added indexes to our tables on DELETED(), a simple change, right?
>
>No it isn't. By now it well known that the deleted() tag is almost always more of a burden than this does good.
>
>Why did you add the DELETED() tags ? Do you have lots of deleted records in your table ? If not, It doesn't speed up anything (Except in a very few limited cases), or could make a mess of your app (like you describe). We've had a real heavy discussion here about the deleted tag a few months ago. In most cases you don't have any benefit from the deleted tag.
>
>>But after that, the entire app was GPF'ing and crashing. And we take alot of pride in our coding practices around here! Since we've been using fox since foxbase days!
>
>Walter,