>>(1) amembers and eval() seem fast enough. I do not think that that would be a bottleneck - should it be then you can generate the >>code for each table object
I read somewhere that AMEMBERS is pretty slow.

>>(2) What do you do when two (or more) fields have changed ? One replace statement or more than one ?
I was doing a replace for each, but have now switched to UPDATE, I am testing results.

>> (3) Can you find the bottleneck in the .Save() method ?
Coverage profile does not identify a slow line but it's the AMEMBERS, FOR..ENDFOR

>> (4) update : with/endwith is about 11 % faster
Yes I am already doing that.

Gary.