Gregory is absolutely correct here - SEEK and then SCAN WHILE on the ordered table is faster than SCAN FOR

>Hi Gregory,
>
>I do not think that the problem is the order. It will cure the problem to the first, yes.
>
>But DISPLAY .. FOR .. will not order the result, it will display the records in the order they are stored.
>So the ascending list
>>>0001
>>>0002
>>>0045
>>>0046
>comes out of coincedence, not of a preset order.
>
>He need a SCAN FOR ... instead of SCAN WHILE ..., and he can delete the SEEK.
>
>Agnes
>