Hi Nadya,
I agree with Jill.

Also, I've noticed in the past that I get better performance (and fewer errors) if I break the statement into multiple parts. Do the join with the smallest result first, then join the next table to it, and then the final.

good luck.

Daniel


>Nadya,
>
>Wouldn't it help a bit to use something other than the ctod('01/01/2001') and ctod('06/30/2001')? these have to be converted to dates on every record? i.e.:
>
>dStart = ctod('01/01/2001')
>dEnd = ctod('06/30/2001')
>and then use those variables (or constants computed another way) in the SELECT statement?
>
>HTH
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>I have a query, which executes too long (though I executed it through PCAnywhere, but it should not be a factor here):
>>
>>

SELECT oJC.CurState as State, CMRView.*, Date, Mortgage, Source, ;
>>ParentCode as Lender, extrWeek, extrYear ;
>>FROM TranMstr inner join Lookups!Lender on TranMstr.Lender=Lender.Code ;
>>Inner Join SiteMstr on TranMstr.PropID=SiteMstr.PropID ;
>>Inner Join CMRView on SiteMstr.town=CMRView.town ;
>> where (between(date,ctod('01/01/2001'),ctod('06/30/2001')) ) and between(Mortgage,1,1000000000)  INTO TABLE \redp\work\CMR\CMR_0FE18SEWQ

>>
>>Here is sys(3054) result:
>>

>>
>>Using index tag Date to rushmore optimize table tranmstr
>>Using index tag Mortgage to rushmore optimize table tranmstr
>>Using index tag Deleted to rushmore optimize table tranmstr
>>Rushmore optimization level for table tranmstr: full
>>Using index tag Deleted to rushmore optimize table lender
>>Rushmore optimization level for table lender: full
>>Using index tag Deleted to rushmore optimize table sitemstr
>>Rushmore optimization level for table sitemstr: full
>>Rushmore optimization level for intermediate result: none
>>Joining table tranmstr and table sitemstr using index tag Propid
>>Joining intermediate result and intermediate result using temp index
>>Joining table lender and intermediate result using temp index
>>Selected 13446 records in 368.26 seconds
>>        275
>>        375
>>        475
>>        575
>>        675
>>        775
>>        875
>>        975

>>
>>BTW, what do the numbers (275, 375, etc.) show here?
>>
>>Do you have suggestions to optimize it (don't suggest to drop deleted tags :))?
>>
>>Thanks a lot in advance.