The chap in your office may be right. On a local machine, VFP will hold up against SQL in moderately sized tables, however on a network, with larger tables, VFP is playing catchup. On a network, all the data specified in the query by VFP from VFP tables is transmitted over the network whereas SQL executes the query at the server and only returns the result. Also, SQL usually operates with more server resources so it does things that VFP has to do double duty on. There are ways to keep VFP competitive to SQL in terms of speeds but usually it is a catch up game at best. Let's face it, SQL loads an additional cost of between $100 to $150 per workstation to support, whereas VFP has no such cost. It stands to reason that it has to have some performance benefit to the user.

HTH,

Bill


>I know that is not comparing like with like but....
>
>Does anyone have a set of benchmarks that compare a select in VFP with a select in SQL Server.
>
>I would expect VFP to be dramatically faster if they are both running on the same spec machine, but how much.
>
>I am only doing this because a chap in my office has the idea that SQL Server is faster:)