John

>I was primarily talking about accessign VFP data here.
>Have you ever tried to USE a table that is located remotely.
>It is dog slow.

Do you mean remotely as in on a WAN? If so, why are you USEing it? Surely you should use parameterised queries whether you are using C/S or local tables...

I recall back in the early 3.0 days a number of us did tests with SQL Server and local tables to compare performance. On 10baseT, as I recall FP came in faster than SQL Server in these stereotyped tests (about 2X as fast) but generated 4X the network traffic. That 4X traffic will be the killer on a busy network or WAN. Since then SQL Server has definitely been optimised as well.

But IMHO people are more likely to choose local Vs C/S tables for data volumes, security, network and reliability reasons, not speed reasons. IMHO speed is a bad reason to choose C/S without one of those other factors. This is, of course, not true for Access, Paradox or other F/S systems, which is why the "party line" is that C/S is faster. With properly optimised tables on a decent LAN, FP is often faster.

>However, all things being equal, I don't see a VFP remote view
>being faster or significantly faster than ADO.

Well, if they're the same engine... ;=)

IMHO performance differences will arise once you have the data. How is it bound? How is it processed? How many hoops do you have to jump through?

JR>OK, what sort of HTTP data are you talking about here?
JP>Application data - stored in VFP, SQL/Server, etc.

Apart from images and other blobs, why do you want to ship it using HTTP?

Regards

JR