>You said: "Other things take a hit as well. This is why it is a good practice to have a deleted tag..."
>

If you have a decent amount of deleted records, and you have set filter on, and the table is of an appreciable size, performance can improve with a deleted tag. It is a fairly open-ended debate, and one that I really don't care about since I don't use VFP data anymore....

>I'm not sure how you understand this, or who you meant this. But I'd see this as saying "it's a good thing".
>
>>and how this setting can effect the results of a popular VFP function Sys(3054).
>
Right, whether sys(3054) returns whether something is fully or partially optimizable. You and I know that partically optimizable will get you 90% of the way there. Often, it will get you 100% of the way toward the best performance.

>But the question was not how this correlates to the output of SYS(3054), but what effect an index on DELETED() has.
>

Actually, the original question was whether Set Deleted was an internal filter on deleted records...

>>Thank you for giving meeting my expectations...
>
>As someone whose native language is not English, would you mind to explain this sentence to me? Thanks.
>

Sorry, typo... I meant "Thank you for meeting my expectations..."

Truth be told, I was hoping to bait somebody into the whole deleted tag argument without actually addressing the argument...< bg > Looks like it worked...