Index on multiple fields

[Kenneth Brody]

The ability to search on multiple fields in the index is a feature that was 
added when the "new" auto-index format in 4.5 added the ability to have 
multi-key auto indexes.  Prior to then, filePro only allowed you to search 
on the main index key.  When this multi-field search was added for the "new" 
index type, the "old" index types (including demand indexes) remained as 
"main key only" searchable.

On 7/8/2016 8:10 AM, Richard Veith via Filepro-list wrote:
>> That's how it has been.
>
> Okay, thanks.   As someone who has only been trying to learn and understand
> FilePro for a few years, when I encounter something that does not seem to be
> consistent, I never know if I am doing something wrong, or it is just
> another 'feature' of FilePro.
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Kreiss [mailto:rkreiss at verizon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:02 PM
> To: Richard Veith <Richard.Veith at SMRresearch.com>
> Subject: Re: Index on multiple fields
>
> Top post.
> That's how it has been.
>
> If you upgrade to 5.8 you can get the version with selection sets for auto
> indexes.
>
>
> Richard
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Richard Veith via Filepro-list
> <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am probably missing something, but my version of FilePro, 5.7, seems
>> to behave differently with respect to multi-field automatic indexes
>> versus multi-field demand indexes.  With automatic indexes, I can
>> create a two-field index, and successfully use the Index Selection
>> screen to provide input for each of the fields, and retrieve exactly what
> I am looking for
>> based on the two inputs.   However, with demand indexes, I can create a
>> two-field index without any complaints from FilePro, but Index
>> Selection only allows input for the first field, thus defeating the
>> purpose (in my
>> view) of a two-field index.  Similarly, when using Lookup in a prc
>> program, on a demand index, it behaves as if the index is only on the
> first field.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that the way it is supposed to be?  And if so, why?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>> scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20160
>> 707/d53f2b38/attachment.html>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Filepro-list mailing list
>> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
>> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>

-- 
Kenneth Brody