>>Filtered indexes will not be faster than views, because they are ignored by Rushmore. IMHO, filtered index should not be used other than on a primary or candidate key because of that.
>I have to argue with you on this because we tried using views just to extract a few hundred records from over 1 million records and we compared it to filtered indexes. And the difference is significant. IMO, rushmore also applies to filtered indexes because the logic behind it is the same with FOR, SET FILTER etc. which are RUSHMORE enabled.

Jess,

Rushmore does NOT use filtered indexes. The documentation states this and has since Rushmore first showed up in Fox 2.0. This is not new, Rushmore also does not use indexes with NOT in the key expression.

A fully optimized select statement that is ONLY getting the records required is fine in performance. Having dozens of filtered indexes covering every possible condition is rediculous in terms of maintenance and in update performance, also your whole approach goes to "hell in a hand basket" as soon as the system needs to go Client-Server.