>SNIP
>>
>>If your system is running 24 hours a day 7 days a week, you need 2 to 3 hours interruption (or longer depending on the volume of data). I think that's a common problem with ISAM databases.
>
>I rather think it's a problem because THESE (VFP) "ISAM" databases have not had the intelligence applied that other, more expensive (and that's what you pay extra for, I suppose) database systems that also are essentially "ISAM", have.
>
>Reading "Inside SQL Server 7.0" a while back made it quite clear to me that SQL Server tables are "ISAM" too as they are STORED and as they are RETRIEVED. The difference seemed to me largely that they had invented a few more gizmos that add significant value to the product as a whole.
>I just don't see calling VFP's tables "ISAM" without also calling SQL Server tables "ISAM". Your doing so suggestsa distinction that, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. What would you call SQL Server's storage/retrieval method?
>

One significant difference between an SQL Server table and a VFP table is that the latter is file based. This is part of the definition of what an IASM table is. IOW, you cannot open an ISAM table without retrieving all the records. You can with SQL Server because it requires you to describe what records you want. A VFP query requires that the underlying table (all of it) be opened and, therefore, cannot be considered to be the same.

One can treat SQL Server tables as ISAM, but that could be a significant design mistake depending on the underlying nature of the table(s).

Snip