Perhaps a more traditional SEEK would be faster? Seeking on the compound index.

>Hilmar
>
>Thanks a lot again but I'm afraid that made no noticeble difference, i.e. it's still taking longer than the age of the Earth to run. I tried as below. The table's composite key comprises: RTE_NO + Rte_Let + DIRECTN
>I did find out why one attempt seemed to go so fast though, on Friday. Note the second commented out line; it has a continuation ";" at the end, so the compiler was just ignoring the SQL as comment and it wasn't being done (I left it in to show - in the run it wasn't there of course).
>
>So back to the drawing board ...
>
>Terry
>...
>

>* and	PADR( RZStop.County, 2)							= lcCounty ;
>* and	not EMPTY( RZStop.TIME) ;
>  Select DISTINCT TIME from	RZStop ;
>  where 	PADR( RZStop.RTE_NO, 6) + RZStop.Rte_Let + RZStop.DIRECTN + STR( RZStop.Number, 3) + ;
>         PADR( RZStop.Stop, 8) + PADR( RZStop.County, 2) = ;
>  	lcRteNo		      + "A"	    + lcDirectn	   + lcNumber + ;
>         lcStopNo		   + lcCounty ;
> 	and	not EMPTY( RZStop.TIME) ;
> 	to SCREEN NOCONSOLE  && Find any time value for this particular stop across all other sequences
>