>>Hey Walter,
>
>>>IMO, there is no common wishdom. When you're using intelligent keys, you'll have the add a FOR !DELETED() filter to the primary index. To make rushmore work, you'll have to have another (regular) index on the same field.
>
>>The FOR NOT DELETED() filter didn't seem to work
>>when I tried it. Have you ever used it succesfully?
>
>Yep, I use it quite frequently. What do you mean by it doesn't work ? What doesn't work ?

It still gave me uniqueness errors. Again, it
has been some time since I tried it and even
thought the results didn't make sense to me, I
didn't persue it at the time.

>>What did you think about the
>>... + TRANSFORM( DELETED()) idea?
>
>Then you can only have one deleted record for the PK value. Besides this, the TRANSFORM function is quite slow.

Generally I just need some "cushion" between the time
I'm trying to add "this" record and packing the
table. I think the one deleted record per pkey
is an acceptable trade-off.

Would an IIF() work better than the TRANSFORM()?

>
>>>>I have tried filtering on NOT DELETED(), but 1)
>>>>it doesn't work, and 2) you can't use the
>>>>index in otherwise optimizable queries.
>>>
>>>1. It should work.
>
>>Seemed so to me. I haven't revisited it since
>>I couldn't get it to work in the first place.
>>If you say that you've used it successfully, I'll
>>give it another shot.
>
>Please try. It should work. If not, then come back to me and report exactly what doesn't work.

>
>Good luck,

Thanks, but I sure hope I don't need it :-)

...kt