>First off, I'm new, perhaps the answer is already out there, sorry if it is... please point me in the right direction and kick gently. :)
>
>Anyway, I wrote a program a while back that opened a table and did a completely Rushmore optimized search over a network. The table had about 10 million records in it. The code was using SET ORDER TO early on (for display) and then later called a fully Rushmore optimized SQL statement. This SQL statement took FOREVER (like an hour). I thought that was strange, and after some investigation found that it was searching the records sequentially and hauling all the data over the network.
>
>I found that if I did a SET ORDER TO by itself so no index order was set it worked in less than half a second (obviously "Rushmore optimized") but if I used SET ORDER TO [Tag] to set an index order first it did a sequential search.
>
>I've never seen anything anywhere that says Rushmore only works without an index set. Without doing a search over the network using millions of records I never would have noticed it (it worked fine on my development PC with a local table).
>
>Anyone know of where this might be documented, and why it's that way?
>
>Thanks.

An extract from the Help file, topic 'Rushmore Technology'.

Rushmore can use any open indexes except for filtered and UNIQUE indexes.

Note For optimal performance, don’t set the order of the table