>Good memory, Walter!!
>
>But there is a distinct absence of being able to CONTROL the fragmentation that makes this "dicey" at best. We cannot in Win9x, but I wonder about in NT - do you know???
>
>good to see you back
>
>Jim N
>
>>Jim, Doug, and others
>>
>>>>... point the table will become miserably fragmented. It's at that point I would suggest that a table is a prime candidate for PACKing.
>>
>>>Defragging the disk will cause the table to become contiguous and because you are not shrinking and growing the table it will remain contiguous indefinitely.
>>
>>This reminds me again of something Jim N came up with:
>>
>>Fragmentation doesn't have to be a bad thing. In some environment where lots of records are added it can be of significant benefit.
>>
>>When the information you need from different tables or index are all within a small area on the disk, the head of the disc don't have to travel large distances on the surface. This can improve systems where the most transactions concernes the data that was added recently.
>>
>>
>>Just my 2 cents.

Jim, et al,

Am I just dreaming or cannot the "big iron" databases track the "hits" and reorg the databases to reflect this? I seem to recall they can, which would be yummy (technical term *g*) for VFP if it could. I doubt we'll ever get this though you could write a tool to track hits and then reorder your DBF that way I suppose.

Just musing...

Best,