>>
>Generally speaking when writing a networked database application, the DBFs are stored on a network drive, suspectible to network failure, (index) curruption, performance issue, etc. With local cursors you don´t have that problem at all, because they´re local.
>>
>>- Cursors don´t suffer from corruption.
>>- Cursors are always local
>>- Cursors generally reside in memory
>>- Cursors at most live durring the run of the application
>>- Cursors are not listed in the database cataloge (database container)
>>
>>That pretty muchs rules out about all disadvantages you have when dealing with DBFs.
>>
>
>You still have a 2g limit...... Putting all of the insignificant things you list aside - from an interaction standpoint - you know.....the stuff that matters....cursors and dbf's - in all material respects are the same.
>
>John

It doesn't make sense to have a cursor with 2Gb. Cursor usually deal with only a subset of a table.