Thanks Mike!

Now I at least have some basis for this. I would imagine, though, that as processors get faster, the "improvement" becomes more and more negligible.

Thanks again,

Jim N

>Hi Jim,
>
>>> I've always had trouble with the idea that Rushmore works faster with *NO* order set. Since you seem to speak somewhat (at least) knowledgeably regarding this "map" concept, perhaps you could clarify this for me?
>
>I'm not sure how much the technology has changed and how much I remember correctly :), but basically Fox has 64K chunks of memory for creating bitmaps of records that match a given optimizable condition. The bitmap stores a 0 or 1 for each record, bit by bit, based on the physical record order. If the table is ordered, then VFP has to figure out where in the table a bit (that represents a record) is relative to the current index.