Thanks All, I think I'll go with the Table buffering. You know, you can almost learn something on the UT if you ask your questions right!

>>Well, I ended up doing just the opposite....I found that losing the opt. table buffer and just going with row buffer solved the problem, but I see how going with table buffering and changing the table update would work as well. Which way would you suggest?
>
>With row buffering, changes are committed when the record pointer pointer moves even if you don't issue an explicit TABLUEUPDATE on that row. This can lead to unexpected results: for example, the record pointer moves when you do a SEEK or a LOCATE but you may not want a TABLEUPDATE to occur yet. With table buffering, changes are not committed until you issue TABLEUPDATE. For that reason, I lean toward using table buffering most of the time. There are certainly cases where row buffering may be the more appropriate choice, though, and you just need to be remain aware of how it works.