No! No! No!

Sorry to be so emphatic, David, but I do want to be clear here.

I am not aware of anything at all about differences in INDEXES between FP and VFP!!!

What I was suggesting to Evan was to keep at it because I don't think that 6-7 seconds is reasonable at all in the example he cites. I feel that there is something amiss for sure, but at a loss to explain (given especially the info available).

Jim N


>>Hi Evan,
>>
>>This at leasts suggests strongly that it is not the network.
>>
>>The users I've had would never put up with 6-7 seconds for the type of example you give, and this even against a near 2-gig table with over 1.3 million records and a whole lot of indexes defined (though it was in 2.6).
>
>are you saying indexes in 2.6 are not as good as indexes in 3,5,6 and later
>(in terms of speed of access using SEEK on an indexed field) ?
>
>i use 2 gig look up tables and i am trying to convince my boss to redo
>all of our old apps in VFP ... right now we keep them in the old dbf format
>
>any info is appreciated,
>DAve.
>
>>
>>I would still say that something is amiss, though I am at a loss as to exactly what.
>>
>>Good luck,
>>