Thats a substancial increase in performance. How long were you twisting hairs before you increased the requery speed by 90%. Thats amazing!

>Hi terry,
>
>The slowness of RVs, in my case at least, seem to have to do with getting the RV definition from the VFP database. If it is on a shared network used by several users, it going to delays stuff esspecially on 10Mbps and slower networks. The SQL command send to the SQL server is just as fast as doing SPT as far as I could see.
>
>Therefore I decided a couple of years ago to include a database into the exe conaining the RVs. The same applies to local views as well. In one local view cases the time to do a requery() dropped from 3.2 seconds to 0.3 seconds.
>
>Walter,
>
>
>>I don't use RV's. When I C/S, I use pass through (and SPs) - I have to do a little extra coding to assure sync, but the server's performance monitor sure seems to appreciate it.
>>
>>But - should I find cause - and I usually do - I will remember your kind and helpful words!:)
>>
>>>Terry,
>>>
>>>Put your RVs into the exe and it will be much and much faster.
>>>
>>>Walter,
>>>
>>>>Probably be good to have one that generates DataSets based on RVs too.
>>>>RV consume so much resource and are so slow. They're great tools for analysis (tuning the project), but s l o o o w for a production system.
>>>>
>>>>We should shop for a technology to replace the RV - who knows how many VFP apps have been misperceived because RVs were implemented.