Jim

Well whined <g>! However, a bug that doubles the CDX size without crashing VFP can be interpreted as not too serious, from a certain point of view.

>David,
>
>The 5 exclamation points were noting that it grew at all. It certainly wasn't expected to grow, even by one character's worth.
>
>MS is no doubt well be aware of the problem of (near) doubled .CDX sizes. I think that Christof's original suggested that.
>
>I am reporting a NEW problem. Geez, David, it was in the message header AND repeated in the first line of the body of my message!!!!!! (6 this time)
>It seemed very possible that MS was not aware of this angle of the original problem, and that is why I have reported it here.
>
>By the way, how would I know for sure that MS is aware of the original or this problem?
>Especially when we have received notice that there are no known reasons to be working on another SP for VFP7 at this time???
>
>
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>>Then I revised the first program to create the indexes while the records were being written. This run produced a .CDX of 88,113,152 bytes according to FSIZE().
>>>The REINDEX program on this table resulted in a .CDX size of 88,145,920. This is bigger than the pre-reindex .CDX!!!!!
>>
>>Do you really think a 32k (0.037189%) file size increase warrants 5 exclamation marks? Surely you understand the way B+Trees are created, and the fact that a couple more pages were allocated by the difference in the way the two different trees were constructed should be within reasonable expectation.
>>
>>Please note I'm not disputing the valid part of the bug report about the near doubling of index size. I can tell you that MS is aware of this !!!!! worthy problem.