>>>>Geno,
>>>>
>>>>I'm going to call it "by design". I'm sure index is not updated until the buffered table is updated. It makes sense (at least to me). Have you tries other commands like LOCATE()?
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOCATE works. What i don't understand, doesn't LOCATE use rushmore and the index? I tested this on a table with 350,000+ records and a compound index and the seek and locate were about the same speed. I would expect this since the locate is rushmore and the index. But why does LOCATE(which uses the index) work and SEEK(which also uses the index) does not?
>>>
>>>Geno
>>
>>SEEK requires to have index tag, and LOCATE may use (for optimization) or not use index tag.
>
>I know the difference between LOCATE and SEEK. My question is what on works and the other does not when there is an index?
>
>Geno

I cannot say by sure why it's so. You know, there are alot of hidden features which might be perceived or not as bugs. My understanding is that table buffering on big table is really rare case. Obviously index should not be changed before tableupdate committed, it might be logical reason behind this behaviour.