I'd be interested in your test results. Now that I think about it a bit more, the FOR condition should be Rushmore optimizable so there may not be a big difference.

>I think, we have to test this statement. It seems right logically, but not necessary might be true...
>
>BTW, as I understood, we have related tables...
>
>I'll run some tests later tonight...
>
>>The COUNT() example will be faster (assuming there is an appropriate index) to first SEEK() and then do a COUNT WHILE instead of FOR. As I recall the FOR condition will read all the records in the table - the WHILE will only read until the condition is no longer true - less records to read.
>>
>>>>I have two tables related together and want to be able to count the number of associated child records whenever I move the pointer in the parent table.
>>>>
>>>>How do I do this?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Use either Select SQL (if tables unbuffered) or count, e.g.
>>>

>>>select child
>>>lnRecno=recno()
>>>count for ChildID = m.lnParentID to lnChildren
>>>go to lnRecno
>>>select Parent