Hi John,
>
>Very insightful...

Thank you.

>This may be the #1 trap that folks fall into when going to SQL; employing a local data mind-set to remote data. Take a table with 100K records. In VFP, it is there, instantly. If you are using local views, there is no difference. When you upsize, you have now hit the wall. Unfortunately, applications are often coded under the assumption that the data is already there. For example, a line of code might do a SEEK. This necessarily assumes the data is available on the client. When dealing with remote data, one should never make this assumption
>
>I don't know if I have interpreted your interpretation correctly. I hope I have. If I have not, then please steer me in the right direction.

I think you've got it right. I've been reading Inside SQL Server 7.0 recently, and the chapter on Cursors (11 I think), really started me re-thinking about my own fledgling approaches. I came to the conclusion that in my situation, even when dealing with mostly flat tables (by requirement) that SPs provided a more flexible overall solution than RVs.

BTW, I think that Robert Green's white paper on the pros and cons of both approaches are well worth a mention.

>And, as a personal note, thanks for adding to the discussion; that is what I have been trying to instill. You are one of the truly talented people I see up here and your comments are most welcome and appreciated...
>
Thank you, John. As I said, I'm a relative newbie with SQL Server and your posts on the subject (and ADO, including whitepaper) are read and referred to often.