Mike yearwood wrote: >> Message: 4 >> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:18:25 -0700 >> From: Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Rushmore optimized? >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Here's an actual VFP question regarding Rushmore optimization.... >> >> It's my understanding that a filter with "NOT DELETED()" isn't Rushmore >> optimized. >> >> But...if the filter has "DELETED() = .f." -- is that Rushmore optimized? >> > > If an index has a NOT in it it cannot be used for Rushmore optimization. > > If you have an INDEX ON DELETED() TAG whatever, it can certainly be > used for a FILTER or SQL - both of which are optimizable - SET FILTER > TO NOT DELETED() or SELECT * WHERE NOT DELETED() > >
Don't forget to take advantage of the BINARY INDEX option added in VFP9...well suited for DELETED() iirc. -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
