>>Hi all,
>>
>>I have a large table in the following format:
>>

>>Table name: table1
>>Record count: 137,866
>>Fields: filenum I,field1,field2...field124
>>index: filenum
>>

>>I've created a query form allowwing the user to select top N of records in the following manner:
>>

>>select top nSelectCount ;
>>     * ;
>>   from table1 ;
>>   where filenum >= nFilenum ;
>>   order by filenum ;
>>   into cursor curMySelection ;
>>   nofilter
>>

>>The user determines the values of nSelectCount and nFilenum through the form interface.
>>But the above query runs so much slower compared to the following query statement:
>>
>>

>>select top nSelectCount ;
>>     * ;
>>   from table1 ;
>>   where filenum >= nFilenum and filenum <= nFilenum + nSelectCount;
>>   order by filenum ;
>>   into cursor curMySelection ;
>>   nofilter
>>

>>
>>The reason I couldn't use the second statement is that the filenum is not always in sequence due records deletion, therefore the user doesn't get top nSelectCount, worse yet sometimes he gets nothing.
>>
>>Is there a way to speed up query with TOP option included the first statement?
>>
>>TIA
>
>No. VFP don't use index when do a ORDER BY clause.
>The first command extract all the records with where condition true,
>SORT the result,
>extract the first nSelectCount rows.
>
>two ways exists:
>

>1. foud the nSelectCount fileNum and do the second select
>SELECT table1
>set order to filenum
>set near on
>seek M.nFilenum
>set near off
>COUNT NEXT m.nSelectCount
>upperfilenum = IIF(EOF(),MAXFILENUMALLOWEDCOSTANT,filenum)
>
>select * ;
>   from table1 ;
>   where filenum BETWEEN M.nFilenum and M.upperfilenumt;
>   order by filenum ;
>   into cursor curMySelection NOFILTER
>
>2. You can use a in order SCAN with INSER
>* BUILD THE RESUL CURSOR
>select * from table1 ;
>   where .f. into cursor curMySelection ;
>   readwrite
>SELECT table1
>set order to filenum
>set near on
>seek M.nFilenum
>set near off
>SCAN NEXT m.nSelectCount
>  * append table1.record into curMySelection
>ENDSCAN
>

Grazie, Fabio for the reply, I shall try your methods. I had to do something different since I posted the message thus the delay in the response.