Hi Tom,

I haven't determined that only a single pass happens - I'm repeating it as I remember it said when the quickness was first discovered (and confirmed).

I agree I get the same sequence of messages and really didn't give it the thought I should have. Now I'm wondering too.
I suppose messages could be 'queued' to preserve the appearance of the old method, but that seems to be stretching it.

My test DBF was only about 5 megs big. Looks like I should try with a much bigger one.

I'm glad you confirm that the bloat is gone. That was the main point BUT I sure want to try to get to the bottom of the single pass thing.

Cheers,
JimN


>Jim,
>
>With SP5 I just used REINDEX on a table with 214,319 records with 15 tags and I get 15 distinct sets of .....GENERATING ......INDEXING messages on the status bar. It would appear that there must of been 15 different reads of the dbf to create the cdx file. I agree that the bloat issue seems to be a obsolete problem as my cdx file went from 20762kb to 13161kb and is holding there after 5 REINDEX commands.
>
>How are you determineing that only one read pass of the dbf is necessary?
>
>Tom
>
>>1) There is no CDX bloat with REINDEX, so there is no penalty;
>>2) REINDEX is much much faster since all indexes are rebuilt in a single pass where the other technique definitely causes multiple reads of the DBF.
>>
>>I believe that my simple test was adequate but stand ready to hear differently.
>>
>>I also would like to hear some reasoning as to why the FPD test would show similar results to the VFP test. I can say that the system with FPD on it does also have VFP with SP4 on it and do wonder if there might be some way that components of VFP could be used by FPD in such circumstances.
>>
>>JimN