>>>>>I have a table where 3 character fields are combined to form the primary key. Because of the manner in which this table is now used (not as originally designed), a record can be deleted from the table by one user and later another user can add a record with the same key values. Auditing constraints require the deleted record (with datetime stamps) remain in the database; packing and recycling is not allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of couse I understand using a surrogate key would be best, but I'm not a liberty to add fields to the table. I'm changing the index via a new "re-indexing" routine added to the executable (a one-time deliverable).
>>>>>
>>>>>In effect, I need as the index "cField1 + cField2 + cField3 + NOT DELETED()".
>>>>>
>>>>>or, if you prefer, "Field1_c + Field2_c + Field3_c + NOT DELETED()".
>>>>>
>>>>>Any help will be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Could you use this:
>>>>INDEX ON Field1_c + Field2_c + Field3_c .... FOR NOT DELETED()
>>>
>>>This sounds good, I'll give it a try. However, since this creates a "regular" index, (I was trying alter table add primary...), how do I ensure only one active record is allowed for the combination of field1 + field2 + field3. Note, any number of deleted records can exist, but only one can be "active". Also, this is a networked, multi-user application, if that helps.
>>
>>You can maintain 'uniqueness' either by using 'UNIQUE' or 'CANDIDATE' (depending on your purpose) clause, or by validating user entry when he/she saves a record.
>
>Why do you say Edward's suggestion: "field1+field2+field3 for ! DELETED()" creates a 'regular' index? I've created a primary key (in VFP 3.0b) and it works fine?
>
>Just curious
>
>dan

In My Application, When I create the primary index I use the filter to .NOT.DELETED() so the index will ignore all deleted records.

I hope that could also help


Xavier