>No lectures about views, please.
>
>Is LOCATE FOR going to be relatively efficient for a situation where SET KEY limits the records to, oh, a few dozen records at most? IOW, does LOCATE FOR use the SET KEY index? I have hardly ever issued a locate, since have been scarred by them in Clipper days. :-)
Hidy Nancy,
I think "Set key" is an enhancement to language. Combined with "locate for" might be questionable since it already has rush me more quickly optimization :) I would have a tendency to use "set key" (don't think I'm paranoid and not thrusting to Rushmore - anybody watching me *|* ?). OTOH I wonder, set filter is also powered by Rushmore but anyone find it fast (not me) ? And OTOH (used both hands ?) don't let "set key" PUN on you (set key + seek(a_multipl_ existing_value_in_set_key_range), if ! first occurence in set key range it would return .f.). Also as order changes set key is nullified implicitly.
Maybe the easier (and faster ?) way (being frankly more coding but the one I thrust) :
seek()
locate for ... while eKeyRange
Cetin