>>>Bottom line is the RECNO() index is not reliable if records are added while using buffering. Even if you run in VFP6 or use the workaround, the recno index does not contain the recno() value for the newly added records once the transaction is committed.
>>
>>Basically, I should remove the index from tables that use buffering, correct?
>>I never used the index enough in 6.0 to even notice the problem. When 8.0 failed to update though, it got my attention.
>
>I would be hesitant to use it at all because you can't depend on the value in the index matching RECNO(). For example, if you delete records and pack the table, the indexed values may not match the actual RECNO().

I think you have convinced me. I really appreciate your time and explanation Jim.

By the way, I was able to implement an update based on your help and guidance at Devcon in Palm Springs on kb817805.

Hopefully, we will be releasing a build on 8.0 SP1 very soon.

Thanks again,

Stacy