>Tore,
>
>That seems debateable to me, given that SELECT has to re-open the table and such.
>Also, SELECT may leave things around whereas there's no question about such stuff with SEEK.
>
>cheers
>
>>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.
>>
I did some testing and wrote about this in the 12/2002 FoxPro Advisor. The answer is "it depends." <g> What is depends on is table size and whether there's one match or many matches.
Here's a link, but unfortunately you have to be a subscriber to see the online version:
http://foxpro.advisor.com/doc/11445Tamar
