Thanks Kevin:
This was a very clear answer.

Mike
>Hi, Michael,
>
>Sorry for jumping in late on this, but wanted to offer some additional feedback:
>
>There was a question about whether Bonnie's answer (SQL will out perform VFP, no question) was valid. Her answer is valid...both in a server-based environment and even in some single-user environments.
>
>I've run tests (single user and server-based) of fully-optimizable joins in both products with hundreds of thousands of rows, and found SQL Server to be faster. Performance differences became even more noticeable as the queries became more complex.
>
>VFP may be a little faster when the tables are small (few hundred rows or so), but for large tables, SQL Server will typically perform SELECTs more quickly.
>
>Yes, INSERT and DELETE statements may run slower in SQL Server, because of the transaction processing and other previously mentioned factors involved. But for many CRUD activities triggered by daily user actions, this is generally not an issue for users. The architectural benefits (see below) usually outweigh the difference in performance.
>
>I believe you mentioned that you had seen bad performance in applications that use SQL Server as their back end when compared with VFP. This could have been for a variety of reasons (insufficient hardware, queries/data access methods not properly constructed, database not optimally configured, etc.).
>
>As Bonnie also stated (and as most know), SQL Server is also the clear winner when it comes to scalability and security...and I'll add things like transaction logging, out-of-the-box support for text searching, better support for the ANSI-92 standard, and protection against physical corruption.
>
>These factors are equally as important as performance comparisons, if not more. SQL Server (or MSDE for smaller installations) is typically the better choice for a back-end database.
>
>Kevin