Re: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

Alan Bourke wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:53:58 -0500, Rick Schummer FLUSH FORCE That sounds like some badly animated team of superheroes dreamed up for TV ads about toilet cleaner. LOL!!! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription

RE: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:53:58 -0500, Rick Schummer FLUSH FORCE That sounds like some badly animated team of superheroes dreamed up for TV ads about toilet cleaner. -- Alan Bourke alanpbou...@fastmail.fm ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com

RE: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

Of MB Software Solutions General Account Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:59 AM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence? Rick Schummer wrote: Some folks say that FLUSH definitely helps, but is there any reason where FLUSH would HURT or CAUSE

Re: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

I think FLUSH should be ok as long as you WASH before returning to work. On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Michael J. Babcock, MCP mbabc...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote: We've got a VFP9SP1 app here that uses free tables, and there's one table that seems to get corrupted quite frequently.

RE: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

Some folks say that FLUSH definitely helps, but is there any reason where FLUSH would HURT or CAUSE ISSUES? FLUSH does have a performance hit on a network and does not guarantee the writing of data if there buffering on the drive by the OS. You would need the FLUSH FORCE to tell Windows to

Re: using FLUSH in your apps -- any negative consequence?

Rick Schummer wrote: Some folks say that FLUSH definitely helps, but is there any reason where FLUSH would HURT or CAUSE ISSUES? FLUSH does have a performance hit on a network and does not guarantee the writing of data if there buffering on the drive by the OS. You would need the FLUSH FORCE