Peter,

Yes, INDEED, a VFP5/6 .CDX is fully compatible with VFP7 and a VFP7 CDX IS compatible with VFP5/6 (at least as far as some limited testing that I did showed).

Remember, too, that ONLY the .CDX doubles in size, NOT the whole .DBF+.CDX. So yes, the 'database' (one .DBF + 1 .CDX) will grow by 50% assuming equal sizes of each to start.
I would doubt that 40gig of data would grow to 60gig but I agree that it *could* happen.
By the way, since it is impossible to REINDEX a single TAG there is no problem with "unarbitrary" growth (allowing that VFP7SP1's growth is not "unarbitrary").
I honestly do not know the impact, IF ANY, of INDEX ON in VFP7SP1 as regards CDX size.

I think that VFP7 SP1 is very very good and that you will find it most useful. Intellisense took me a bit of time to get used to, but it not only speeds my work now but it also reminds me of capabilities that I had 'forgotten'.



>Jim, thanks for the info.
>
>Another question please :
>
>I don't have VFP7 running myself, but was planning to do so within due time;
>Is a VFP5/6 indexed index compatible with VFP7 ?
>
>I mean, in our situation the size of dbf-index is about 1-1, and when from now on all indices will be twice as large, the whole database will be 50 % larger, right ?
>A lot of our users have a 40GB+ database, which will grow to 60GB then. It surely needs some new harddisks here and there ...
>
>When all is compatible, I'm thinking of the REINDEX to be done in 5/6.
>I know, rather stupid, but my idea anyhow.
>
>And, is it confirmed that this happens with INDEX ON too ? This question, because it is a known fact that a REINDEX of one index tag only (out of several existing) will let the CDX file grow "unarbitrairy" anyhow.
>So we never use REINDEX and INDEX ON only.
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>>Peter,
>>
>>The primary argument that the change is not a bug is that several index-related bugs were fixed by VFP7 SP1.
>>However, someone over in the CompuServe VFP forum *did* make a statement that MS had accepted the "observation" as a bug.
>>
>>What I do know is. . .
>>1) REINDEX prior to VFP7SP1 did shrink a .CDX when there was ONLY "bloat" caused by added keys (that is, not "bloat" caused by DELETE TAG operations, though those versions also DID remove such bloat).
>>2) A REINDEX under VFP7 SP1 of a table that was immediately previously REINDEXed using VFP6SP5 (and so was at its smallest possible at the time) did cause the .CDX to virtually double in size.
>>
>>There could be something about distributing 'free space' in a .CDX that improves speed. But in and of itself, surely ALL REINDEX operations already did take care of redistributing nodes to optimize performance as well as to eliminate "bloat".
>>
>>To my knowledge MS has NEVER made a public statement about the state of .CDX files after a REINDEX in VFP7SP1, so no one can know for sure. The statement on the Compuserve forum was second-hand information.
>>
>>cheers