>Hi Geno,
>
>>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?
>
>Thanks for verifying this. My first suspection was that LOCATE might disable Rushmore here, but that would have made me wonder when I haven't noticed such a problem. The only guess I can make is that Rushmore accesses the cached and updated index, while SEEK accesses the physical index on the disk.
>
>Christof

That makes sense, but what's still a mystery is why SEEK comes back with a recno() of 8 when seeking Field1 = 7, which occurs only in physical record number 7. At first I wondered if Geno might have had SET NEAR ON and the SEEK was failing, but in my own testing it turns out the setting of SET NEAR makes no difference and SEEK(7, "Fld1", "Field1") returns .T. and recno() = 8 either way under table buffering.