>>There could also be some overhead by opening the table inside the SELECT.
>>
>>>Seek reads little of the index. SELECT reads much more of the index.
>
>As he did include the use and the seek in his sample code, I hoped he'd be including that in the comparative timing.
>
>It could also be that he created a local table and appended records into it in the do while, while the query created a cursor on the server.


hi Mike,

Got a new HD and my problem was solved.
My POV :- (I have tested this)
By the way Opening the table shared actually doesnt load the whole table into memory.

Try my code from the earlier post and check the timings ...

You might need to restart the system in between tests..

Also Faster would have been Sacn while .. endscan. Isnt it ?

suhashegde