>>>>>>>Is there a reason that you are not using "INSERT INTO tablename ..." to add records?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Larry, have not heard from you in a while...
>>>>>>I am using APPEND BLANK with table buffering, is it preferably to use INSERT INTO with table buffering?
>>>>>>:)))))
>>>>>
>>>>>insert into is preferrable almost all the time
>>>>
>>>>especially assuming multiple manipulations with buffering, etc.:)
>>>...yeah...what they said! //:^)
>>>Still having problems with the dups. I know that there are bugs using table buffering. I dont recall specifically what they are, but nevertheless I dont like table buffering because it consumes a lot of network and work station resources (from what I understand). Unless you are adding multiple records (child records) that may need to be "undone" then you should try to stay with record buffering. //:^)
>>I took care of the dups.. In the UNLOAD event, I coded:
>>scan empty(field_name)
>> blank
>> delete
>>endscan
>>
>>When I add, I scan for deleted() and recall.
>>Just like to you showed me... :))))))
>When you scan (or locate) for deleted you have your indexes turned off, dont you? (SET ORDER TO 0)
No - I have not been using SET ORDER TO 0 - Am I suppose too?