Anton Tichawa wrote: > There are several other things too in this old procedure, that might still > cause errors or need optimization. If you want, I'll write a small procedure > that does the same, andor rewrite your procedure for comparison. That'd be > for God's Sake, I don't need no money or any other thing.
I ended up assuming that it could always read "count" records (except of course in the end) and implemented that. It seems to work fine now, but of course it is not safe as the documentation does not specifically state that it will always do it this way... My program now runs 35 times faster than before... :-) Best regards Preben -- In politics stupidity is not a handicap - Napoleon _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
