>>>This also adresses SQL-queries on SQL server.
>>No it does not, since you did not use SQL-Server.......
>
>IMO it applies to SQL server too.

Well, unless you actually use SQL Server in your tests, you opinion really does not count for much...


>
>>>To my limited knowledge
>>This pretty much damages the credibility of your argument here...
>
>>>the strategy of SQL on a SQL-server is comparable with those of VFP. The intermediate results are also stored either in memory or on disk. I'm just pointing out that it would better to follow the described strategy in at least some cases.
>
>>You are basically saying that the VFP engine and the SQL-Server engine are on equal footing... This would be incorrect...
>
>In this field, i'm saying yes, SQL-server uses the same strategy as VFP. If you want to argue this point, come with FACTS. To doubt my theory in this way is inappropriate.
>
>I challenge you John, can you PROVE that SQL server does not store intermediate results, before it sends the result to the client ???
>
OK, I agree with you here that in concept, SQL on VFP and SQL Server does the same sorts of things. However, to imply that VFP is as or more robust than SQL Server is nonsense. For example, once you get to 4 or 5 joins in VFP SQL, the whole thing begins to break down. SQL Server does not suffer from these sorts of limitations...

>
>>This test tells us absolutely nothing that we already don't know, the fact that at times, in a VFP-only environment, X-base constructs can be more effective than SQL syntax...
>
>I didn't know you'd know that, I'm glad you agree here.

Nahhh, I just happend to be a co-author of what is generally regarded as an excellent book on VFP, and many projects under my belt. What would give you the impression I would know thi???? <bg>...