>Naomi,
>
>If you are trying to replace UPDATEs with REPLACEs for speed purposes, you probably don't want REPLACE FOR, but rather REPLACE WHILE. IOW, order the cursor in such a way that you can SEEK() to the first matching row and then only replace the rows that match. This cuts the number of rows needing to be traversed down from the total set to the affected set. Otherwise, REPLACE FOR and UPDATE WHERE don't usually have significant speed differences.
>
>HTH,
>Chad
>
>

I was thinking about it, so I'll try it. Thanks a lot.

>>This doesn't seem to make a difference. E.g. the process is still running for ~ 10 minutes already...
>>
>>I switched from UPDATE ... WHERE to REPLACE FOR