COPY will properly update the index.
CNAME will not.
1st line of my previous post should have said:
UV10 CNAME STILL DOES NOT UPDATE INDEXES if the index is part of the
ID.
=====
(I forgot to add my favorite disclaimer too: all errors are the
responsibility of the reader...)
-----Original Message-----
Charles:
Are you saying that copying 13350*ABC to 13351*ABC wouldn't properly
update the indexes? Or is CNAME using some obscure method of updating
which bypasses the normal I/O that indexing handles?
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stevenson,
> Charles
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [U2] Longstanding aversion to CNAME?
>
>
> UV10 STILL DOES NOT UPDATE INDEXES if the index is part of the ID.
UV10 CNAME STILL DOES NOT UPDATE INDEXES if the index is part of the
ID.
>
> > From: Norman, David (SAAS)
> >
> > In UV9.4 CNAME didn't update secondary indexes, which left a bit of
> > a mess behind. This has now been fixed, probably from 9.6.
>
>
>
> Example. A 2-part id: [internal-date]*[something] indexed on date (
> @ID['*',1,1] or FIELD(@ID,'*',1) )
>
> Changing a "0" to a "1" in a date in a particular id:
>
> CNAME file 13350*ABC,13351*ABC
>
> will leave old, nonexistant id "13350*ABC" indexed under date "13350"
> and will not add the new id to "13351".
-------
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
