>Well, as I said I made some costmetic changes of the code during posting. Sorry, shouldn't have done this. To be more precise I exchanged the hard coded values 2005 and 1 with the vars. If you fix the code it does updates.
>
>And all in all it's slower than the sql, although I was lucky (or unlucky), that the xbase code ran faster in the two test calls I only did.
>
>The time needed by either sql or xBase varies very much. Taking 2 to 14 seconds with sql and 3 to 50 seconds with xBase on a 1Ghz PIII notebook with 128 MB ram and 40GB HDD. In My first testruns I got some of the best xCase running times and about 2-3 times slower SQL running times.
>
>Now, as I did some more test runs I'd also concratulate to SQL. Maybe the xCase variant can be optimized a little further if I analyize it with COVERAGE. Just for the fun of it...
>
>Bye, Olaf.

Olaf,
Check your xBase code carefully. It would never take under a minute on that hardware configuration. Probably you're updating much less than you think.
PS: I wonder how could you run new SQL construct under VFP6SP5.
Cetin