Mike,

>Jim
>
>Well whined <g>!
It's a continuous effort, and I am pleased to see things are improving.

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

Yes, I can see that. All the more reason that we need to know what bugs there are, so that we can evaluate them for ourselves. Even if we can't promote another SP if we spot a bug (bugs) warranting such in our opinions, we will at least have knowledge to stay away from certain things. Maybe the release itself. For instance, Mr. Asherman had learned of a new feature that finally warranted his purchase of VFP7. News of this problem could well cause him to re-evaluate.

A near-doubling .CDX seems pretty fundamental to me and quite out-of-character for VFP. Now we learn that REINDEX also seems impacted. And you may have missed it in my original post, but INDEX ON also seems to have problems under the new regime, yielding different files sizes depending on if it was (re)used after table creation. All this adds up to something possibly being seriously amiss in the most fundamental area of VFP. Some of us could take the tack that it may be worse than causing a crash.

>
>>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.