Aage J wrote:

>You can take a look while the process runs. If you can see updated

data

>(from another transaction), then the updates was committed.

Yes. I looked while the process was running and the updated data was
there so the individual updates were being committed.

Alan wrote:

> Isn't your CF script running via ODBC? If so, then it will be
>running, by default, inside one implicit (page based) transaction.
>Unless you make explicit transaction calls to start/commit/rollback.

I am using ODBC but CF has a tag called CFTRANSACTION which I did not
use and which will group multiple queries or updates into one
transaction. I think that if you don't use this CFTRANSACTION tag
around all of the various updates, then each one is committed as it
completes.

Alan mentioned in a previous reply that I wasn't going about this in a
good way. I'm willing to admit that may be true. What in my approach
is incorrect or less than ideal? I have some very large databases in
which specific columns for every record need to be updated.

He also mentioned it would be a good idea to backup and restore this
database after stopping the CF server the way I did. How does this
help? I'm just trying to understand. What potential problem would
this overcome?

Thanks Aage and Alan!