>>>(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.

I did a test on amembers with eval() - it's not that slow
Also the part that is likely to be te bottleneck is the update/replace

Did you see the rest of the thread re: keeping two separate objects (instead of _surname) and comparing those two with objComp() - that will save you the loop in case nothing has changed. You will still have to loop if compObj() returns false


>>>(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.

Try to make one update statement that modifies ALL of the changed fields

>>> (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.


good luck,

>Gary.