Kevin,

>>Still unclear. Local or remote do tables have 17-31 records per table ?
>
>No, that is the result of the query, so the scatter/append from had to perform the operation on 17 records.

The problem probably is in the SQL statement, not in any other part of the program. Did you try to identify the slow parts by using the coverage profiler. If you're comparing a SQL statement using a native VFP SQL statement with a ODBC VFP SQL statement in .NET and find the origin of the difference here, there is really nothing to conclude from your test: It does not involve .NET at all, Since the resultset seems to be insignificantly small you won't find any significant difference in post processing the data into a report whether you're doing VFP or .NET.

Are you by chance using deleted() tags on the tables and use SET DELETED ON in the VFP version and SET DELETED OFF in the ODBC version. IOW, it probably is something in the SETtings causing the difference.

Walter,