Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!lisboa!windemut
From: windemut@lisboa.tmc.edu (Andreas Windemuth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Indexing Digital Librarian Targets
Message-ID: <1991Jan28.052130.17814@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 05:21:30 GMT
References: <1991Jan25.165550.24316@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <62697@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: Theoretical Biophysics, University of Illinois, Urbana
Lines: 20

In article <62697@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes:
>
>You are not doing anything wrong. The truth is that under 2.0 the
>index files have a new, improved structure (they use now b-trees
>instead of hash tables). Thus of course the new routines can't update
>an old structure. You therefore have to delete the index and create a
>new one.
>
>Ronald
>
I dont' think it is necessary to delete the old index. 
In my experience the 1.0 and 2.0 indices can peacefully 
coexist in the same .index directory. Of course, updating
one doesn't update the other, so if you have mixed access
from both 1.0 and 2.0 systems, you have to build or update
the index twice, once for each system. Of course, it is
generally a bad idea to have a mixed network, because many
things won't work ...

Andreas