><snip>
>
>>Terry,
>>Typically, the control source for the grid (or listbox) would be a cursor.
>>So, I would have to loop through the cursor and add the rows to the listbox, correct? That could introduce a delay in the object appearing with data, correct?
>>The idea of sorting without indexing is definately attractive.
>
>Hi Allan
>
>It's been my experience that I often have to grab columns from multiple tables for the user to sort on. That is not necessarily easy without using SQL.
>
>You should compare using SQL to create a cursor, and then populating the listview, versus indexing the cursor and binding a grid to that cursor. I'd guess a few index commands will be faster than the looping code that populates the listview.

Hi Mike,

I'd guess faster too. BUT if the LV is 'fast enough' anyway then its advantages *can* be compelling.
My focus on "faster" is now limited virtually always to I/O and rarely to command/function/looping 'speed' because your (now) average GIGAHERTZ processor levels that part of the field rather nicely.
A LV is, to my knowledge, ALL done in RAM always.

If one is determined that the application is best done by entering directly into a grid then of course a LV is not applicable.
cheers