>>>I suspect that the removing an object has to rearrange collection properties like controls() and objects() and the larger the number of objects, the more time it takes. This would explain the exponential increase of time needed when large numbers of objects exist.
>>
>>If this is the case, would manually storing a reference to the objects in instantiation order, and then removing them in that order save some time?
>
>For testing this issue I yesterday built a routine that scans through the objects (using AMEMBERS), puts the info in a table and uses that (ordered) table to remove them, first the youngest child then its parent, then its parent, etc. There was no gain. On the contrary, the two phases together (data collection and removing) were more time consuming.
>
>However, removing certain (known) parents did improve performance.

I presume the problem is solved for the moment. But in the interests of completing my thought - the suggestion was to build the array/cursor of objects at creation time, not destruction. However, given your last line, destroying from top down of that list should be more efficient, but then you have items in the list destroyed before you reach them.

Chris.