>Thank you for your prompt reply but, here, Rushmore is simply not the issue.
>
>No fields that would be involved with Rushmore optimization have been changed . Additionally the query itself is completely unchanged.
>
>Something else is going on to cause this for no obvious (to us) reason. Other ideas?

Well, I just wondered: if it's not Rushmore optimizable then VFP scans whole table, and if, for some reason, disk fragmentation got bad (i understand it's a big stretch) then something could change.