RE: Something lighter than a database file . . .

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   8. Something lighter than a database file . . . (James H H Lampert)
>
>Would anybody have any suggestions for something that 
>would:
>
>1. Be lighter than a temporary database file, preferably 
>living in memory, instead of on disk, and having less 
>overhead than a file,
>2. Yet still be capable of expanding to contain whatever 
>data records are put into it,
>3. While rejecting duplicate records?

Sounds like... an array in alloc'd memory with some simple programming to 
manage duplicates.

How about a *USRIDX? And with a private pool and SETOBACC, you might even get a 
good part of "living in memory".

Tom Liotta