Yes, I've recently been playing with indexing on deleted(), and I've been picking up speed inside Fox, but not as much as you'd think. Haven't tried in Crystal. I'd be curious if you tried opening the DBF in Crystal directly (not via ODBC in Crystal) and seeing what that would do. It seems to be, the less interpreters, the better the performance. Of course, there are times when you must use ODBC, and your job may very well be one of those times. However, if you can, I'd try to create a new report and add the DBF to the environment (don't choose ODBC, choose "Table," or "File," or whatever it asks for).

JR

>We have played only a little with Crystal and Fox tables. The major performance problem we came across was with filters on indexes in the table. We have a "not deleted()" filter and this killed the performance.
>Since then I have heard that the workaround for this sort of problem in foxpro itself is to create an index on the same expression as the filter. We have not tried this yet.
>
>HTH
>Craig
>>Do you have to use ODBC? Are you using a SQL command? Because Crystal will read DBF's directly through its own interpreter.
>>
>>JR
>>
>>>I have a connect to pass through ODBC with Dbc for Crystal Report
>>>but It's very, very .... slow
>>>Somebody know Why?