Hi Mike, 243 - 139 makes 104 useless fields. Plus their indices. Good catch! Question remains: why are there 104 seemingly useless fields? Are those fields completely blank / empty? Maybe they have been added for some planned but never finished additional module. Maybe they are a leftover from some import / update mode. Maybe they are used from a different application, which you haven't seen yet...
I once had a similar scenario, where those fields had names with an incrementing number like "field_c_1", "field_c_2", "field_d_1", "field_d_2" etc for several fieldtypes. It was their way to get customizable fields into a vertical market application. For each customer installation they could use those dummy fields for different customer demands. The bad thing with that code was that a simple "code reference" search for the exact fieldnames didn't got any results, since they built the resulting fieldnames in a loop like "field_" + cType + "_" + str(i,1,0) and stored them then in an array.... Yea, it was damn flexible, but definitely not for easy understanding! :)
As to "what to do": go with option 2 and let them run their app again. If it bombs on some fields you'll then know fore sure that your search wasn't perfect :) Just rename them back, without any hassle to merge old saved data with the current tables.
wOOdy
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ProFox profox-bounces@leafe.com Im Auftrag von MB Software Solutions, LLC Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2019 21:45 An: profox@leafe.com Betreff: Another refactoring question regarding unused columns in a DBF table
The main table in your inherited legacy application has 243 fields. Through looking at the database columns individually, you have determined that only 139 of those are used. (really!) They're of mixed types (characters, numbers, logicals, date/time, etc.). Getting rid of them takes you from a record size of 3093 down to 1982. In one instance, testing showed it reduced the size of the DBF by 1/3! Some of those unused fields have indexes on them. Let's assume I dropped the indexes on those fields.
Do you:
1. do nothing...leave them as-is. 2. rename them to "X<fieldname>" so that you can basically mark them useless (to be later dropped) but have the ability to rename back to original if the app hits a snag showing a dependence on that useless field. 3. do something else I haven't considered? (Dropping them immediately is not an option as it's too radical/nuclear and offers no failsafe at time of change)
tia, --Mike
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
[excessive quoting removed by server]