>>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.

Maybe related to indexes on DELETED.

I have never seen a non-optimized query run faster than an optimized one except for the deleted thing.