Gerard,

Jim pretty much covered everything I'd have said. The only thing I've ever wanted to do on a buffered view has been to run some summary info so the user can see the current running count/total of the view as the edit it before they commit the edits. For this purpose a scan loop works. Your COPY TO is writing out the contents of the view/cursor to a real physical table.

>Is'nt running a Scan Loop really the same as doing a Copy. It's another process that needs to be run.
>
>If you have a data source (i.e. The buffered data) and two commands which normally do the same thing (i.e. Copy to and Sql Select) , why should they behave any differently 'JUST' because the data is buffered ?
>
>This beahviour really renders SQL SELECTS (with Buffered Data) useless without cumbersome workarounds . This in effect then means that one would think twice about using BUffering at all if the de facto standard these days (ie. SQL SElect) cant even be used on buffered data .
>
>I'd be very interested to get a general view on this behaviour... the fact that 'Workarounds' have to be employed indicates a good reson for defining this as a 'Bug' rather than a 'Design Feature'