>Few days ago somebody started a thread for removing Six month search restriction (I'm not a premier member, so can't see old msgs..)
>
>Paul vlad answered that there are seperate dbf files for each six months i.e. why we are using that restriction...
>
>My suggestion is that where the period (Starting Month-End Month) is given, instead of using a Combo Box there, put checkboxes...
>
>That way user can select/check 2-3 time-ranges at one time and search... Program can also open req. files as per the user's selection..
>
>That way it can solve both problems...
>
>Pls advs. your comments....

As you may know, a search capability is frequently the biggest transaction a server can handle (process on CPU, time to return the result, etc.). Whatever is needed as enhancements in a functionality like that need to be taken with care. I've seen the other thread and it's not lost in space. You probably have seen that I will only comment on a suggestion after it's implemented or if I can't do it right now for specific reasons.

I'm still thinking on that one. The infrastructure of the search tables is not something easy to play with. The fully benefit of maximum search capabilities, it will require an additional server dedicated to that. We have several servers so far. Adding a new one is something that need to be planned ahead (cost, maintenance, etc.). So, enhancing the search to allow search options, no date range, etc., need to be done with care.

Some interesting facts: you probably have seen the number of messages in this forum so far. Do you have any idea of the size of the search tables? ;) This is one thing I've learned from an online service I used to use before. I was restricted to only search up to two weeks. I raplidly found what was the reason for that. However, I didn't want to apply the same restriction here. So, at least, we are able to search in the entire archive. It might just require an additional click on your side however.

Another point, it's usually more important to implement long awaited new features than to do some enhancements on some of the existing ones. In this case, that applies. We have a working functionality in the search engine to search as far as we want. Yeah, I've seen it up to 1997 or is it 1996? :) Many people figured that we should drop those historical searches. I prefer to leave it there. That's one good point about UT. We do not remove anything. It's always available. I've found answers in the search in those years recently. Yeah, I do use it as well and when it happens, I'm pretty happy to see that we support going back in time. However, sometimes, we might have a more important need to enhance a feature than to implement a new one.

This one is on hold. When we'll have the money, resources, time and maintenance availability, we'll go for it.