> So, what I'm trying to say is that (1) the index, however it is
> implemented, is extremely unlikely to be more efficient than the hashed
> key, and (2) that after finding the key using the index, Image still uses
> the hashed key to access the record using the synonym chain if necessary.

Yep.

> >> For example, if a master dataset has a b-tree index, could
> >>DBGET take advantage of that fact and retrieve the record via the index
> >>rather than hashing the key and potentially chasing down synonym chains?
>
> which implies that somehow (1) the b-tree (or whatever method is used) is
> more efficient than hashing and (2) using the index means that the master
> record can be accessed WITHOUT doing a hashed read and the consequent
> "chase down the synonym chain".  I do not believe either of these to be
> correct.

John's correct.  Whatever method IMAGE uses internally for indexes,
once it obtains a key, it does the normal hashed access (reading down
synonym chains) until it finds the correct master entry.

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html