>>>> Neither.
>>>> SEEK && or SEEK()
>
>Craig -- have you found SEEK() to be quicker than SEEK? I remember benchmarking this a while back (5.0, maybe 3.0) and found that the function version was quicker. I haven't re-tested recently, in large part because, as a result, these days I use SEEK() exclusively.
>
>Nitpicking, I know.... but we are discussing the *best* way to do something, and so nitpicking is what it's all about.


I haven't tested it either way.