Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of scribla
scriblaFlag for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

asked on

grrrrr removing old field names

I am working on a new database and now decided on a radical change in field naming conventions, to help end users construct more meaningful searches.
I have searched and read previous questions relating to flushing old field names from the DB: index, compact -c, delete index, compact -c, new index. It's just not working for me, and it's driving me nuts. I have moved all of the existing forms and views to a new DB so they do not even exist in the DB in question, I have also removed all documents. I am just left with my outlines, frames, pages, and image reasources.
Yet when I create a new view, I can still see the old fieldnames listed when I create a new column.
Please help, I've on the verge of starting this DB from scratch its so annoying!!!!
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Sjef Bosman
Sjef Bosman
Flag of France image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of scribla

ASKER

I couldn't get DDsearch to install, maybe it doesn't work with the 6.5 client?

Anyway, A little test seems to indicate that the form is the problem. To test this I created a blank DB locally, and copied the form in question from another DB, and this form only contains 4 NEW fields, but at one time contained 40 old fields. All of the old fields are appearing in the index as soon as it is added to the new DB, what on earth is embedded into this form I wonder, what ever it is I can't see it.
Notes maintains a field list as well as a design cache. You could try to compact the workspace.

DDSearch works with the Designer client. If you exactly installed DDSearch as indicated, it should be there, to be activated under Tools/Search...
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of scribla

ASKER

Sorry guys but nothing worked. There seemed to be some ghosts embedded in my original form, as even removing all the fields from the form then copying it to a new DB stuffed a whole collection of dead fieldnames into the new DB! It's the strangest thing I've ever seen, even DDsearch could find the fields.
I did consider raising a call with Lotus, as I'm sure this is a bug of some sort, but I found it more productive to dump the form and build a new DB, I pulled most of my resources from the old one, and made a much better form and application framework in the process :) but it's been a long day.

I would like to spilt points evenly if thats ok with you guys, I really appreciate the help.
Avatar of scribla

ASKER

correction: "even DDsearch couldn't find the fields"
They're rather tenacious, arent they? Did you muse on Duffbert's Ranndoum Musings? See http://hostit1.connectria.com/twduff/home.nsf/plinks/TDUF-5SMHV4

I don't like spilt points ;)