buppcpp wrote:

> This is 1 example of a customers database, I have thousands of other
> customers where this index is relavent.

Relevant for your current DB engine. That's not a gurantee that it's
relevant to FB. As has been pointed out before, you're not giving us the
full picture.

> Besides, my current database uses it in my example query and is
> lightning fast compared to Firebird.

Is 15 seconds really "lighning fast" for this query? You've been giving
more than one suggestion of improved DB design that would improve
performance on FB (and probably on your current engine too) to probably
less than a second. Why not give that a shot?

I've been telling another poster that he wasn't really being helpful,
but I have to say that there's more than one dog in this dog fight.
Please stop the hostility that's inherent in the way you write and argue
the issues and try to embrace the help you've actually received. The
fact is that any given DB engine will have it's quirks. You've stumbled
upon a case where FB doen't do an excellent job, but there are
workarounds that are not only good for performance in FB but actually
make a lot of sense in theoretical DB design aspects too (the store_no
should be a lookup).

Kjell
--
--------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
Adressmarknaden AM AB
E-post: kjell.rilbe@...
Telefon: 08-761 06 55
Mobil: 0733-44 24 64