Hi Aleksey,

that was it, thank you very much! But I have never seen this change documented or mentioned anywhere, even though I usually am very observant. Don't you agree that it should at least be mentioned in the Changes in Fynctionality for the Current Release in Help? I have read that chapter many times the last few days, to see if I could find something there which could explain what I found very weird.

>Hi Tore,
>
>Check CPCURRENT() and CPDBF(). If they don't match, VFP9 won't use indexes on character expressions for optimization.
>
>Thanks,
>Aleksey.
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I have read more or less all threads regarding VFP9 the last year, but now I face a problem which I can not remember having heard about.
>>
>>I try a standard SQL select statement, SELECT * FROM myTable WHERE myField=myValue. MyTable has about 700,000 records and is located on a WIN2K server and is shared by many users, all running VFP8. MyTable has many index tags, also on myField. When I run the query on VFP8, the query is fully optimized and is instant. Running VFP9 on the same table, SYS(3054,11) shows no optimizing and takes 7 seconds. Can anyone tell me what I can do to get my speed back into VFP9?
>>
>>Update:
>>I copied the table to another filename on the same server, and removed all the other index tags, and the result was the same, slow on VFP9, instant on VFP8. MyField is C(17), I have tried all the different collate sequences with the same result. But when I copied the table to C:, the query was instant on both VFP8 and VFP9. Now I am even more confused!
>>
>>Even one more update: Another field in the same table is integer, and has an index tag, and a query in that field is always instant.