>I agree, this sure was a performancekiller. Within fox, this all changed because it now could optimize the set filter. The need for filters within fox decreased tremedously because you could define the scope of the command within a FOR clause. Still I'm convinced there is a place for SET FILTER is some circumstances. This practically means that you should think twice to use a SET FILTER command, and be aware of the advantages and disadvantages compare to the alternatives.


Walter,

And the Title of this thread is "10 things to avoid in VFP" I certainly believe that SETB FILTER belongs in the list of 10.

>>IMHO, you can't go wrong NOT using filters, but you sure can go wrong using them.
>
>I'm on the standpoint you can both go wrong using them or not. SET FILTER certainly has it's place.

Thisis where we disagree. Using SQL to filter the records set is using the standard syntax in use by almost every database management system on earth today. Using xBase code is limited to xBase. When a system has existed long enough the request inevitably comes upi to move the data to a different storage system. I find it much easier to do that when I have used SQL throughout. So, if I need to make a generalized recommendation it is to avoid SET FILTER.