Ed,

Finally, my views are "cooking". One last hickup which I just solved was the slowness of the query. I discovered that Rushmore was not kicking in because the index tag on my source file was custno+date, and the WHERE clause is WHERE orders.custno=?cCustno.

Once I created a new index tag on custno (alone) the querys returned to lightning speed. I also used SYS(3054) to verify when Rushmore was helping.

Thanks for helping point me down the right path. Now, I can proceed to the next hurdle. =Joel=

>It's not necessary but helpful to add them as free tables, just to avoid development problems.
>
>>Ed
>>I guess I failed to mention that my tables are FPD26 tables. Do they need to be included in the project as "free" tables, or is it OK that they are merely available on the path.
>>Thanks for you other answers.
>>
>>Joel
>>
>>>>(2) Earlier I had problems with the view definition disappearing, but I discovered I had not included the path to the source files, and that problem was fixed. Now, however, my view does not seem to recognize the source file's index tag (CDX), therefore it does not use Rushmore to do its search, and is very slow as a consequence. I'm not sure what I did, but during my testing, there were a few times when the view did indeed function very rapidly (and therfore must have been using Rushmore) I don't know what was different when I had success. But I can't seem to recreate the successful combination of settings.
>>>
>>>If view and tables are part of the same DBC, then I don't see how you could get in troubles.