Barry,

VFP9 won't use indexes on character expressions for optimization if CPCURRENT() and CPDBF() don't match. Previous version used such indexes which could produce incorrect results.
The CPDBF() should be the same in VFP7 and VFP9.
You have to change table codepage to the current codepage if you want Rushmore to work. If you want to convert data to the current codepage, use COPY TO command. If you want to change codepage only, use cpzero.prg from VFP Tools\Cpzero subdirectory.



>
>Here are the results: which seem to show the cpcurrent and cpdbf for VFP9 to be set correctly (whereas vfp7 is not!). I'm not clear of the signficance of code pages in this context.
>
>VFP9
> CPCURRENT = 1252
> CPDBF = 1252
> Rushmore optimization level for table salesdet: none
> 0.169435,,program6,13,c:\temp\program6.fxp,1
> 0.000342,,program6,14,c:\temp\program6.fxp,1
>
> VFP7
> CPCURRENT = 1252
> CPDBF = 850
> Using index tag Sono to rushmore optimize table salesdet
> Rushmore optimization level for table salesdet: partial
> 0.002871,,program6,13,c:\temp\program6.fxp,1
> 0.000303,,program6,14,c:\temp\program6.fxp,1
>
>Even using Select - Still 60 times slower.
>
>..........................
>USE c:\alba2\salesdet
>jcid="36578"
>
>
>SYS(3054,11)
>set coverage to c:\temp\cover.txt
>SELECT SUM(salesdet.qty*salesdet.price) AS jnGoodsval, ;
>SUM(IIF( LEFT(salesdet.cat,1)<>"S", salesdet.qty*salesdet.price, 000000.00)) AS jnPlantsVal, ;
>SUM(IIF(LEFT(salesdet.cat,1)<>"S", salesdet.qty, 000000)) AS jnPlants ;
>FROM SALESDET ;
>WHERE salesdet.sono = jcID ;
>INTO CURSOR CRSRESULT
>set coverage to
>SYS(3054,0)
>