My problem is this, the data is on a NT 4 box and I have 2 do queries/subtract info out of this table. I'v tried SELECT but that was realy very, very slow. Then I used the SET FILTER. A lot better, but far to slow.

The Computer i'm using for this is a Pentium 133 with 64 MB. How much improved performance will i be able to get say on a P2-400 with 254 MB memory, will this realy solve my problem.

Moving to SQL Server is also a possible root to go. The problem is i dont know SQL at all and i Do not know if iit will be any faster at the end of the day.

PLEASE help.

>If we're talking just speed...you'd probably have to run some tests, and then it would also depend on your coding style. Some firends at work were having a debate over the performance (speed) of Append Blank and Replace, vs. Insert. It was surprizing to see the on the first round of implementations X was faster than Y...on the second round of implementations Y was faster than X...on the third round of implementations X was faster than Y...
>
>On the other hand...If you want to consider non-speed related issues (integrity and integration), then for my money the DBC wins hands down...even if you don't use it's advantages. It would be more flexible from the view of potential future enhancements...
>This of course is just my "Rule of Thumb"...All rules of thumb are open to abuse at the appropriate time...
>
>>I wouldn't expect to see any difference at all.
>>
>>>Hi to all
>>>
>>>Does anybody know if a very big table (700,000 records and 1.2 Mil)will function better as a free table or in a dbc