>>If you were to graph performance, SQL Server would start out with a higher response time for one user, but would not grow as step as VFP as more concurrent users are added. The real challenge is determining at which point VFP or SQL makes sense in your environment. Not to mention remote users or internet users of you product.
>>
>Mike,
>I have no experience with SQL Server, but I wonder about your logic. With VFP, when I add a user, I get a new CPU to do the work. With SQL Server, I must share the CPU(s) in the server with everyone else.
>Charlie

My assumption is that you plan to write an application that is used by more that one person. Therefore the databases must be stored in one location. If you are writing only a single-user application, why would you even consider SQL Server?

My point is that benchmarking a query in the environment that you previously stated is not a valid test for a multi-user application. VFP will naturally be faster working with smaller datasets and smaller number of CONCURRENT users. This is what it is designed for. After a point as the load / dataset sizes / contention increases, SQL server will handle the load better. This is what it is designed for.

Mike