If you are a FileMaker developer using FileMaker, please select one which you feel fits best

EDITED: Well, I wanted radio button, LOL. Please select just one. I am performing this poll because many times I find regular (non-FM or tech) folks might not understand (or believe) that the innocent-looking Recover command might not do what they think its name says it does.

In this way, those that really know FileMaker can let everyone else know ... ya know? The more votes the better but please only one, LOL :laugh2:

Edited April 1, 201213 yr by LaRetta

I voted for #2. I believe ir's true. However, I remember doing Recover on a perfectly functioning file many times over the years. Each time I ran it, FM reported missing fields and tables, then created them, naming them "Recovered". If I ran recover on this recovered file as is, I would get errors related to these fields and tables. BUT if I took the original Recovered file and removed the added objects, then ran Recover on this file, it came up clean. I'd I had had a real problem I might have considered it prudent to use this recovered file. As it is, there's never been anything wrong with it. Ever since creation some years ago, recover has done the same dance, even after running some of the optional tests that would identify unused blocks. Go figure. I don't trust it!

I remember doing Recover on a perfectly functioning file many times over the years. ... Ever since creation some years ago, recover has done the same dance, even after running some of the optional tests that would identify unused blocks. Go figure. I don't trust it!

You've made an important distinction ... from what I gather, the FileMaker engineers have improved the Recovery process (was it in 10?).

Thank you for providing your perceptions. BTW, I'm leaving my bias out of this (for once and lucky for everyone, LOL).

This Damaged/Corrupt forum is good place to read through, particularly gems such as: http://fmforums.com/forum/topic/75046-database-corruption-multi-file-a-better-solution/