Not if the percentage of scanned records is high. This is because of the way data is cached (is this a correct word in English? :)). (This is the only explanation I found.)

Also, if you SCAN FOR ... ENDSCAN the same table ordered and not ordered, the not ordered SCAN is much faster. (I obtained up to 1:21 raport on a Novell netware.) Since the WHILE scans a great part of the table, it is almost the same as the FOR. (It's hard to beat a 1:20 rapport! :))

This applies only when the order is random compared with the physical order. But this the usual case, so...

The best thing is to do your tests in each real situation. Because if the order (almost) matches the physical order, the WHILE is faster in all cases.

Vlad

>Vlad,
>
>Since the table is ordered, and the record pointer is positioned at the first applicable record, wouldn't
>
>SCAN REST WHILE...ENDSCAN
>
>be faster regardless of the percentage of records?
>
>George