Jim,

Perhaps you and he should work this through. I think what Dave was getting after was that your tests should be as uniform as possible...

>Great, Doug.
>
>But I really didn't get what David was driving at. Can you help me out here?
>
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Pretty much. As David sugessted you should keep your test approaches the same.
>>
>>While I don't think that this is a real big deal it would be interesting to see the results.
>>
>>Give you something to do over the weekend. <g>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Doug,
>>>
>>>I hope that this is what you had in mind:
>>>
>>>Under VFP7 SP1:
>>>
>>>Use subject table order by 16-char field...
>>>
>>>TEST1
>>>COPY TO a new table (just the DBF) then INDEX ON the fields in question.
>>>
>>>TEST2
>>>COPY TO a new table WITH PRODUCTION to create the indexes during the copy.
>>>
>>>TEST1 resulted in a .CDX size of 100,990,464 as reported by FSIZE()
>>>- an immediate REINDEX gave an identically sized .CDX
>>>TEST2 resulted in a .CDX size of 88,145,920 as reported by FSIZE()
>>>- an immediate REINDEX gave an identically sized .CDX
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim,
>>>>
>>>>Out of curiosity...
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you try something (if you have the time & inclination) that might shed a little light on this. Once you have reindexed the table do the old COPY TO stuff and use the new table that has the records in the new physical order. Reindex that table's tag and see if that does anything. I'd be curious to hear whether or not this shrinks the CDX down.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, we optimists will now have to start speculating why this change took place. Maybe they're going to give us more table space... (he says TIC seeing if anyone will take the bait.. <g>)
>>>>
>SNIP