>>>Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I always build my queries on the fly, so I have not had the need for this!
>>
>>Me too,
>>After I discover the power of CAs I stop using Views immediately.
>>As I said to Naomi the code posted here reminds me the code built from View designer, that is why I assumed that we deal with Views here.
>
>I am the original poster of the question. I inherited the code, and do not have any idea how it was created originally.
>
>Now, I notice that this view is used in multiple places...
>
>It seems to me, that the group is suggesting changing it to a CA. How difficult would this be?
>
>In all forms it is presently used, it is a view that is loaded on startup. Also 3 of the underyling "tables" are views themselves. I requery them prior to requerying the dispatch view.
>
>I think if I change horses, i.e. to CA's right now, I would be opening myself up to a lot of work debugging the code. Which I would likely have to eat, as the customer would balk at the work needed.
>
>This would mean a rethink would it not?
>
>Just wondering about some of these ideas...
>----------------
>BTW,
>I did some more digging, and I too was wondering about the empty clauses and values =0 in the original one. There is no case in the application where either item is empty or not a value rather than 0.
>
>So I removed and modified that, until the new query gave the same result as the old one. (Identical result sets.)
>
>
>Thanks to all, and this is what makes this a good forum,
>Mike

You wrote that this query use to run fast using VFP6, as far as I recall. As Tamar also wrote, make sure that CPDBF()=CPCURRENT() for all the tables. If these values does not match, VFP8 and VFP9 will run queries slower. This is not a bug, but rather an old "bug" which was fixed.