"Neil" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in
news:rmY2j.3278$fl7.1 (AT) newssvr22 (DOT) news.prodigy.net:

I think there are differences beyond capacity. We can see a list for MS-SQL
Server 2005 at:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...-features.mspx

I don't know of a smiliar list for MS-SQL Server 7, or MS-SQL Server 2000,
but someone may have them squirreled in his or her archives.

I guess someone with a lot more patience than I have might find something
by starting at:

http://support.microsoft.com/selectindex/default.aspx?
target=search&sreg=en-us&adv=1

"lyle fairfield" <lylefair (AT) yahoo (DOT) ca> wrote


I see what you mean. Still, there don't seem to be any differences between
versions that deal with any SQL that one would write, or any objects that
one would create. Re. indexed views, it does state: "Indexed view creation
is supported in all editions. Indexed view matching by the query processor
is supported only in Enterprise Edition." So one should be able to create
indexed views in all editions. So it must be a SQL 7 thing (or "lack of
thing," rather).

On Nov 27, 12:49 pm, "Neil" <nos... (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote:
Hey guys. I already tried the SCHEMABINDING but it caused me all
kinds of problems. Changed fields on me; many of my Stored Procedure
would no longer work. I finally ended up deleting my Scema Bound View
and the original Table and the triggers and indexes and then recreated
them to get back were I started. I got all kinds of error when trying
to create the schemabinding "Quote Identifier OFF" Quote Identifier
ON, Ansi nulls OFF Ansi nulls ON etc. With my level of expertise I
might be better off not missing around with the schemabinding .

I just wanted to say though thanks for the help. I got a lot of great
ideas. On the book mark goto, I got it to work faster by cutting the
file in half. Lets say there are 10,000 items with item numbers 1
thru 10,000. If the item you are looking for in 5000 or less I do a
findfirst if it is greater than 5000 I do a FindLast. This has
dramatically increased the speed. Once again thanks for the help.

Oh yeah, that's right. That's what we were talking about in the first place.
:-)

That's a good idea, using FindLast. Never thought of that. Still, I have to
wonder if you can cut down your recordset entirely and just use smaller
sets. Anyway, glad you got some improvement.

Neil