UFT-L Archives

Archiver > UFT > 1999-12 > 0945090221


From: "Ron Chenier" <>
Subject: Re: [UFT] Renumbering Records
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:03:41 -0500


Maggie,

I understand very well your point of view you mention below.
However, the gist of the matter was "if someone wanted to re-use a deleted
number" how to go about it.
There were two response as far as I could see.
Personaly, I don't see anything wrong with keeping records numbers straight,
even if they're only housekeeping numbers.
I don't have one unused number in my database of over 17000 numbers that I have
created over the last 13 years.
Just simply put...."just good housekeeping".
I have about 10-20 people I constantly refer to as points of references when I
do research and find it much, much more convenient to get to them by just simply
doing an F10, put their number in and up they pop, rather than typing in full
names. So in many instance the value of knowing record numbers has been a
valuable tool in itself. To me they're not just "house keeping numbers" they are
are valuable tool to used.

If one does not want to re-use deleted numbers, fine! But, if one wanted to
re-use them, at least the two previous explanations should be acceptable means
of doing so for their benefit.

Just my opinion.

Ron Chénier

----- Original Message -----
From: Maggie Kitts <>
To: <>
Sent: December 12, 1999 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [UFT] Renumbering Records


> I used to be compulsive about Individual Record Numbers.
> I now understand these are merely housekeeping numbers.
>
> An empty record will not use a significant amount of hard drive space.
> A 10,000 empty records will not use a significant amount of storage.
> (I suspect they take no space at all.)
>
> Knowing an Individual Record Number can be
> useful to you when searching for that person.
> So you might print out a list of everybody by their surname
> with given name and Individual Number.
> But this is not a list you would send to anyone of print
> in a book.
>
> By knowing the Individual Record Numbers of two or more people
> who carry the same name can be useful for you, the researcher.
>
> The numbers generated for individuals in a Family
> Journal are not the same as Individual Record Numbers.
> The numbers generated for an ahnentafel report are not
> the same as Individual Record Numbers.
>
> Don't put Individual Record Numbers into a Ancestor (Pedigree)
> Chart except for your eyes only. 'Aunt Tilly' doesn't care that
> in your computer, her grandfather is individual #37 since, in
> her computer, he is #24.
>
> Just want to know how many individuals are in your database?
> Click on File, Project Information, More.
>
> Save yourself time and fuss.
>
> Besides, I have heard that if you reuse an empty number (after a
> Pack),
> then add another new individual, in certain conditions, you might
> accidentally be using a duplicate number for the second individual.
> Why risk it?
>
> Maggie Kitts
>
> Visit the web site of the Roots Users Group of Portland OR
> <http://rug1.tripod.com/>;
> Users of Ultimate Family Tree genealogical software
>
>
> ==== UFT Mailing List ====
> *********************
> UFT-L MAILING LIST
> http://www.uftree.com/
> To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to
or
> , depending on which you originally subscribed to.
>
> ==============================
> Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject.
> RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions.
> http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi
>

This thread: