>>Didn't you know that I don't use buffering? BTW, VFP6 will have function
>>allowing SEEKing without moving pointer. In regard to second problem: it's
>>not difficult to have routine finding new 'unique' key value to shift out
>>deleted record. BTW, the normal process could also involve 'safe deletion':
>>when you delete a record, candidate key values get replaced by some
>>reserved sequence (e.g. "000001","000002", etc.).
>>
>>Privet Sevastopolyu.
>
>What's the difference between the next version's IndexSeek() and the
>KeyMatch()? IndexSeek() will not be as buggy?

AFAIK, KeyMatch move pointer back and forth, trigger row buffering tableupdate() anyway, IndexSeek presumably will not move pointer in current work area at all (I guess table will USE ... AGAIN).