Hi Bruce,

I was thinking something along those lines from your initial post, but since you didn't offer the approximate size of the tables, and since you often write about larger tables here, I refrained.

Also, when someone suggested the header record count after appending there was no indication that you were adding records versus re-writing them.

I like your theory and suggest that you try a FLUSH after each TableUpdate. There's nothing in the docs that states that a FLUSH is even operational with buffered data, but it seems like it cannot hurt to try.

Good luck,

Jim N

>I'm offering a theory here that would account for lost data I posted about this morning. There are 3 tables on the server. A user opens them up EXCL in an app, does an hour of edits, the machine crashes, and all the edits are lost. This is with table buffering, and in spite of constant Tableupdates during the editing. All tables have edit timestamps, and no stamps were made for the editing period. All tables are fine otherwise, the editing was re-done without trouble.
>
>The theory is that somehow the vfp app copied the entire tables (which are quite small) into local memory, and performed all the Tableupdates on the local copies. The the machine crashed, and the copies were never returned to the server.
>
>I realize this sounds odd, and I've never had anything like it before, but I can't account for the data loss in any other way.
>
>I would like to think this can't be true, but can anyone tell me that this theory is not possible?