>>>Gustavo,
>>>
>>>One design change suggestion would be to break the DBC into multiple smaller DBC's. 750 tables in one dbc is quite alot and it would seem that those tables could be logically devided up into smaller groups.
>>
>>Have you looked in the Stonefield Data Toolkit? It was designed to change tables more easily than standard VFP code.
>>
>>Barbara
>
>Barbara,
>
>I use Stonefield alot and you're right it is a great tool. But I still think there is a design flaw when a database has 750+ tables in it. I cna't imagine the business problem that has 750 closely related tables that require being in one dbc.

Jim, I agree with you about the 750 tables, but I thought that had been covered by others.

One problem with threads is my message follows yours (I wanted to include your suggestions) and therefore is ADDRESSED to you although I really wanted to address Gustavo as original sender. At least Michel has added the ability to copy the message to the reply box of anyone listed on the thread now.

Barbara P.