Hi Fabio,

I think you wanted to reply to dennis in stead of me.

>I had the same problem as you when I ported my FPW 2.5 application to VFP 6.0. I solved my problem adjusting my join expressions in order to they match to the ones defined on the indexes. I played a lot with SYS(3054,1) and SYS(3054,11). The end result was almost exact times between both versions. I don't know if Rushmore internals has changed from FPW version to VFP 6.0, but at least for me it seemed to behave differently.

In VFP, rushmore can make use of primary keys (which are holds by nature unique values). The joins connects different tables by indexes in a simular way as SET RELATION if applicable. The performance of VFP queries can differ quite a bit from FPW due to its memory management. FPW had an enterely internal memory management which optimized FPW applications, but did not play nicely with the windows memory management mechanism. VFP memory management is adjusted to play better in the Windows memory management. In VFP it might take a few queries before VFP has reserved enough memory to reach te maximum performance of queries.

Walter,