Adam wrote:

> >
> > It returned like 18 records that matched the criteria from the
> 1million +
> > records in the table so I'd say that was pretty damn fast. I tested
> in the
> > application too, where I need to display the user's current sales
> from today and
> > it was very, very fast. Coupled with a nice little "Please Wait..."
> message
> > that displays for like .5 seconds for subjective speed and I say it
> looks like
> > its safe to use one table like I had hoped to do.
> >
> > Nice.
>
> Great it worked out for you. You may want to also try without the
> IDX_SALE_SALENUMBER index by changing the last line to.
>
> ORDER BY
> s.SALE_NUMBER+0;
>
> Often an indexed sort is slower than an in memory sort.
>
> Adam
>

I'll try that. I'm using an OPF so I'll have to write a hard coded visitor in
the morning to do that. In the meantime, does the +0 negate the index somehow?

Thanks again,

--
Warm Regards,

Lee