>>>>I need a fast COUNT for my table. Is there something faster than COUNT FOR? My code is COUNT FOR empty(mydate)... :)
>>>
>>>I've found mark & cetin answers, and sure they are in the right way, not me, but how about issue a 'seek' and then 'count while' ?.
>>Carlos,
>>This is fast and sure a right way. I prefer SQL because I don't like playing with rec pointer for such operations. Underlying code might lead to side effects (ie:in an edit session valid would fire).
>>Cetin
>
>Do you mean that SQL does not move record pointer in the table ?. Ok. Good thing.
Yes, SQL select doesn't touch rec pointer. Only drawback it operates on flushed data (I mean with buffering you don't have the buffered data included like in use again).
Cetin