They are both Rushmore optimizable, so the speed should be almost the same. But if you're using LOCATE FOR ... CONTINUE instead of SCAN FOR ... ENDSCAN, you should keep in mind that LOCATE ... CONTINUE cannot be nested, while SCAN... ENDSCAN can. The code is also more clear with SCANs than with LOCATEs.

Vlad

>I've been using the 'SCAN FOR' command and the 'LOCATE FOR' command in some of my applications. In terms of speed - does anyone know which is supposed to be faster? They appear to work about the same speed to me...
>
>Regards
>
>Chris Kable
>FuelTrac