>It's a feature, not a bug <g>. I've experienced the same thing. Using persistant relations, the View Designer gets more right (like setting up the field and table update info), but not always; without them, it 'best-guesses' the relation AND update flow, which seems to be where the problems are. At first I tried to work around this by just setting up a view, copying the SQL into a program, then throwing the view away, but if you intent to create an updateable view that can cause problems.
>
>I'm still doing some experimentation with this, but since it was pointed out to me I've been trying to get into the habit of defining the relation first. It does solve a lot of problems. If that is not an option, you have to define the view on a layer-by-layer basis, which can get tedious.
>
>Cheers - Dan LeClair
>using my boss'es account 'till later

Dan,

Thanks for your note. (For a while I thought I was going to win the award for the "longest-posting-never-replied-to" on UT <g>.)

I agree with all the things you say. Creating a presistent relationship first seems to help the view designer get it right.

Also, be sure to try enabling SQL ShowPlan with the "11" parameter to have vfp show you the joins being used the the SQL optimizer:

Type SYS(3054,11) in the command window to enable SQL ShowPlan

VFP will then show you the "mistake" being made by the View Designer.

As I think I mentioned, these "features" of the View Designer were mentioned in at least one presentation at DevCon.

Best regards,

Steve