>I think I must have confused you, or I wasn't clear in my previous statement. So, with that being said, I'll try to re-state:
>
>A non-clustered index is less efficient than a clustered index as SQL Server must traverse the various index pages to locate the record's location. Then, SQL Server must go and find that record, either by using a clustered index if one exists, or the RID.
>
>If you don't have a clustered index on a table, but you do have a non-clustered index, I don't think you'll see much of a performance difference between using an RID versus a clustered index in one existed.
>
>I hope that makes my previous statement a little clearer...

Yes it does. Thanks.

Although, you might want to look at JVP's messages on this thread because he says he found that a performance did occur for him and Rodman when they added the clustered index and the non-clustered was able to point to it instead of the RID.

It was nice swapping ideas with you again. Later.