HP3000-L Archives

September 1997, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Dirickson b894 WestWin <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Steve Dirickson b894 WestWin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:06:00 P
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
<<I agree with Denys.  Adager's DETPACK (Detail Repack) doesn't lose
chronology ... it was the first detail repacking tool available, and all
modes of running it (Serial, Chained, and SuperChained) retain the
chronology of entries on any and all chains.>>


I'm a little confused by these responses. We seem to have a number of
people "riding to the rescue" to save the reputation of one database
utility or another, apparently to "defend" it from some putative attack.
Looking back over the thread, I don't see where any claims were made by
anyone that any specific tool does or does not preserve the chronological
sequence of chains on a sort/pack operation. What *was* said is that the
only "guaranteed" way to preserve the chronological sequence of a chain
under all legitimate modification scenarios is to put a sort on the
chain.

Steve

ATOM RSS1 RSS2