>Hi Hilmar
>
>I gave up using Flush because it was taking 1.25 seconds per record in VFP 7.0 on a Dell PIII-450mhz Win2k 100meg Ethernet network. So if I updated 100 records it took over two minutes. However, removing the Flush the update was done almost instantly.
>
>I understand the risks but the users were complaining about the slow speed of the application. So I would only use the flush command in some very critical sections.
I didn't check the time for an individual record, although meseems it should be considerably less than 1.25 seconds.
However, when a batch process changes several records, I would recommend (as a compromise between speed and safety) to do a single FLUSH at the end of the batch process. Of course, just closing the files after the batch update does the same.
Hilmar.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
