General information
Category:
Coding, syntax & commands
>>Point taken....
>>
>>1st a VFP table is NOT a flat file like a txt file from notepad and your network admin needs to know that.
>
>>Alan
>
>Actually, that is exactally what a dbf file is.
>
Well, BOb, if that is true then it is arguable that a SQL Server 'database' is also!
After all, the only 'real' thing that differentiates a SQL Server database/table is that SQL Server manages it own tables within a big (pre-allocated?) file space. Each table itself is no more than a 'flat file' by extension of your logic. That you can't see it in a directory list is simply a technicality. In fact there is no real difference between a .DBF/CDX combination and a SQL Server table/index combination - they are both effectively ISAM in their internal access method.
My take is that a .DBF is decidedly NOT a "flat file", even though it looks like any other flat file when you look at a directory (folder in new terminology).
First, most VFP tables are a combination of a .DBF and a .CDX and many also have an associated .FPT. A flat file has none of that.
A .DBF has a header that defines/describes the file's content. A flat file does not. A .DBF's header also stores the file's record count (and so a calculable file size). A flat file does not.
Your average flat file is written in one single go, more likely than not to all-contiguous HD space. A .DBF is only very rarely written that way, and especially so in a multi-user application.
Your average flat file allows only a single updater at once while a .DBF is designed for multiple 'simultaneous' user updates. Admittedly this is not a function of the file itself, but is IS a difference.
cheers
>BOb
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only