>>Let me clarify my previous post. In this case you would use:
>
>>INDEX ON BINTOC(field1) + BINTOC(field2) TAG tagname
>
>Thanks George for the interesting answer.
>It cerntainly worked. I just never thought about converting them to binary.
>Will it be as fast as the str() function?

First, it's probably faster. If you use the STR() function to convert, it's going to yield 10 characters. If you're going to pad them with leading zeroes, you'll also have to have to call PADL(). BINTOC(), however, yields a string of a maximum of four characters. So right there, without the the call to PADL(), you're using 60% less characters, etc.

Second, it's not really a binary conversion. Rather it converts the integer to a four character string representation of the binary value.

BINTOC() (and CTOBIN(), which converts it back), I believe, were created for exactly this sort of usage.