Hi Stephen,

Just for your edification, some new "facts" (in quotes because I have a suspicion - not really widely shared, I'll admit, that it is really a **change** in Rushmore behaviour) about a TAG on DELETED() is that, *most* of the time such a TAG will hurt rather than help **IF** SET DELETED is ON.

If this was done 'by design' by the MS team in the relatively recent past, then we deserve to have been told about it. If it is a 'mistake' in VFP, then it ought to be corrected ASAP.

regards,

Jim N

>>Hi -
>>
>>turned out that simply re-indexing (or losing indexes!) solved the problem - must have been some hang-up woth that.
>>
>>Just FYI -
>>-data is not on network
>>-SET DELETED IS OFF - so indexing on deleted would be useless (said this one before)
>>
>>thanks!
>>Ken
>
>Rushmore uses that deleted index alot and if not there you could just hurt yourself.
>
>Local access to 1.5 mill transactions is not normal? You should seek help if you consider that "private data" {just joking}
>
>
>What is the size of the cdx file? 5-10 meg?
>
>__Stephen