>A blind LOCATE is the same as LOCATE FOR .T.. The Filter is optimized, as is >the deleted condition if the indexes exist.

So why if we are talking about optimization does a locate nooptimize run 250% faster than a locate on a 40K record table and a 100K record table? This is done on tables without filters.

Actually I ran the same test with a filter that did not match the index expression and the findings were about the same.