Richard Kaye wrote: > Unless your record size is really large or involves a lot of memo fields, I > can't imagine that VFP wouldn't laugh at a 3000 row cursor. A cursor can be > maintained completely in memory by VFP and should be faster than temp tables. > You can create indexes on cursors and the time to create and maintain the > indexes would probably be saved by not having to perform table scans for each > of your processes. But as Ted R. would say, you need to test your code under > realistic conditions to determine the best performing code.
I agree with RK. VFP will handle your 3000-record cursor just fine with its own temp indexes. Do NOT use the IDX indexes as you had in the past. Just use a CURSOR and indexes with it for simplicity's sake. -- Mike Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC President, Chief Software Architect http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
