>Hi all,
>
>In the good old FoxPro for DOS days I was used to always
>creating an index on DELETED() in order not to display
>deleted records.
>
>I now want to use instead the FILTER field available in the Table
>Designer to have in there the !DELETED() clause in order to
>achieve the same thing. Does anyone know if there are
>performance penalties associated with using filter clauses
>in index definitions ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>Michel.

Michel,

Indexes with FOR clauses are NOT used by Rushmore in optimization. This means, if you create all your indexes with FORs then you will need to have another st of indexes without the FORs for optimization.

To revent deleted records from being seen, SET DELETED ON. The index on DELETED() does nothing about seeing deleted records, it does optimize the SET DELETE ON though. For an index to be used buy Rushmore it cannot contain any FOR condition and it must not contain NOT in the index expression.

So,

1. Create an index on DELETED() (<STRONG>not NOT DELETED())</STRONG>to optimize deletion resolution.
2. Do not use FOR conditions unless you have another index on the same
   expression without the FOR condition.