Hi Frank,

you say that SEEK() is generally faster, and I say that if so, the difference is minimal. My experience is that SELECT is usually equally fast, often even faster.

>Hi Nadya,
>
>since nobody has mentioned it, if possible I would use a SEEK() as it is generally faster than SQL.
>
>I would also ensure I was searching and indexing using the UPPER() or LOWER() functions.
>
>Have you used the SYS(3054) function to check the optimisation of the queries?
>
>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>In the Names table we have cl_Name C(25), cf_Name C(20), cM_Initial C(1) fields. If I want to search by last name and first name I can use:
>>
>>

>>SET ANSI OFF
>>select ... from ... where cl_name ="GREE" and cf_name = "MAR" and cM_Initial = ""

>>
>>or I can use

>>lcName = padr("GREE",25,"_") + padr("MAR",20,"_")+padr("",1,"_")
>>select ... from ... where cl_name + cf_name + cm_Initial LIKE lcName
>>

>>
>>I currently put the following indexes in my local copy of Names table:
>>
>>cl_name
>>cf_name
>>cm_initial
>>
>>cl_name+cf_name+cm_initial
>>
>>Today I re-coded from the first approach to the second and it seems to me that I slowed down my searches considerably.
>>
>>I think, in either case we do not need to have an index on cm_Initial (it looks stupid to have an index on 1 char field).
>>
>>What do you think? I would appreciate your input.
>>
>>I've done the same with the Phone (we have separate fields for different phone parts). I haven't tested this change yet.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.