>You act as if you never used disk spanning in FP. If you used SQL-Select or USEd a decent sized table in VFP, you used disk-spanning. I agree that it was seamless and invisible, but you need to dig deeper than that. Recast your vfp experience and its use of disk-spanning. What parts were simply habit? What parts are easily replaced by a small C/S query or are better handled in a SP? What parts were remarkably easy if you could create a series of large local collections and relate them all together for analysis or reporting? Rather than relying on simple mantras like "SP is always best", consider which machine makes most sense to perform that sort of work and whether indeterminate-size datasets have any role in that.
>


Who cares what it does behind the scenes. .Net does a lot behind the scenes and I don't care how they do it as long as it works. I don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car, or how ac motors work to use a light. When we had a need to use large datasets, we recreated the functionality that we were familiar with. Now I don't have to worry how its done again, it just works.


>
>After that, you may still come up seeing no value in disk-spanning, but at least you'll have something to contribute apart from a personal attack. ;-)


I always called it auto-swap to disk. Show me where I said there is no value in disk-spanning, never did, again your making things up. Why do you believe that disagreements are personal attacks?