>Jim,
>
>>I surmise that VFP7SP1's REINDEX command simply no longer has any of that kind of bloat to eliminate. Thus the differences in my observations between VFP6SP5 (and FPD 2.6?) and VFP7SP1.
>
>I specifically stated that already in the first paragraph of second post I made in this thread. Go back and read read Message #
652575 http://www.levelextreme.com/wconnect/wc.dll?FournierTransformation~?2,15,652575Do you mean this statement, David: "
The two CDXes were NOT built the exact same way in your two tests, so one should not expect the balancing of the B+Tree to be the exact same when it's built as records are added, compared to VFP being able to read the table as a whole and build the B+Tree all at once."?
Please forgive my reading ineptitude, but I don't see where your quoted statement is even close to the question I asked Christof and that you answer here.
The "your two tests" that you refer to are the tests I ran using VFP7SP1 I presume. I come to this conclusion based on the fact that you compare the two different 'constructions', letting out the possibility that either of the tests that you refer to are the ones I ran using VFP6SP5
in the same message (highlighting for GeorgeT's benefit).
I am specifically asking Christof if I have correctly interpreted his description and if that interpretation means that the type of bloat that we were used to seeing in prior versions of VFP is no longer prevalent in VFP7SP1.
I expect him to reply in the affirmative.
Assuming that he does, then I stand by this bug report as a true and legitimate "bug report". The basis for this conclusion is that there is a marked difference in the result of a REINDEX between VFP7SP1 and prior VFP/FP versions. Observing the difference, and finding not one whit of mention in the product documentation regarding differences in either .CDX structure or, more importantly, the .CDX size, nor any mention that the revised structure effectively eliminated the 'freeing' obsoleted nodes (hangs on to actually seems more apt), I reported a bug. Many bug reports are answered as being "by design". This one may well turn out to be "by design". I can accept that.
>
>I'm glad you are finally seeing the light.
Seems that the light that I am seeing is not the same one as you have in mind.
