>Goerge,
>
>>This is very similar to what must occur when using a function such as MIN() in an SQL statement. Only by comparing each row to the current minimum can the function determine the minimum value. This will result in the number of rows examined number of comparisons.
>>
>>There's no argument here to the contrary, Walter. This is what happens.
>
>I never said that there is no overhead at all. The question is if its measurable. Also your example be compared with the SQL statement containing the MAX() or MIN() function because it is interpretated for each iteration as only ones in a SQL statement. The MIN() and MAX() function is executed for each row in VFP underlying C/C++ or assembly code. There is absolutely no comparison between executing the MIN and MAX function in a few lines of C/C++ code and interpretating VFPs Pcode. Don´t forget that the undocumented ´last physical´ row feature when grouping rows also requires some kind of function to keep track of the last row value of not aggregated columns.
>
Walter,

No you didn't. What you did question was whether or not what I was saying was "common wisdom" or fact. It's fact. Further, it is a terribly bad practice to rely on undocumented features.

Don't try to twist this into something I'm using by utilizing SET ENGINEBEHAVIOR. It's not because the usage is documented.

George

Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est