The view I'm using is a parameterized view. Is that not filtered? Or are you talking about the "INTO CURSOR cursorname NOFILTER" clause in the SELECT-SQL command?

- A Hilton


>Andrew,
>
>Deleted() tag hurts views because view is NOFILTERed cursor. However, if you do ad-hoc SQL-query to get FILTERed cursor then the results will be quite opposite. It's exactly the point: deleted() tag is dangerous if application is blindly based on views.
>
>>I don't know about the past (before VFP 6.0) because I never used the deleted() tag before the 6.0 version. But I was reading the below posts on this subject and decided to do a little (very unscientific) test on my development machine with the same table/view/screen/grid that I mentioned in my previous post.
>>
>>My previous post mentioned that I had a big speed improvement when I took out the deleted() index tag from the table from which the view was based on. This was for a networked application. JUST NOW I tested it all locally (my development machine) and found pretty much the same improvement when the deleted() tag *wasn't* there. Both (with and without the index) were considerably faster when it was all local though. One thing I did notice here is that after the first time doing the requery() the results were returned very quickly (as compared to the first time after shutting down VFP and either adding or deleting the deleted() tag. I'm assuming this was caused by the file cache getting into the act after doing the first requery().
>>
>>So, to sum it up, I've found that (at least in this particular case) the deleted() index tag hurts the performance on requery's. I had assumed that the deleted() tag would have helped and not hurt (which is why I originally put them there in the first place!). If anybody comes up with a case where it would help then please let us all know. I'm all for speed!
>>
>>- A Hilton
>>

<snip>