Hi, I basically have this schema: CREATE TABLE "act" ( "id" int NOT NULL auto_increment, "title" text NOT NULL, "is_closed" bool NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY ("id") ); CREATE INDEX act_isClosedIndex ON act (is_closed); CREATE TABLE "entry" ( "id" int NOT NULL auto_increment, "note" text NOT NULL, "act_id" int NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY ("id"), CONSTRAINT "entry_act_id_exists" FOREIGN KEY ("act_id") REFERENCES "act" ("id") ); CREATE INDEX entry_actIndex ON entry (act_id); Each "act" has several "entries" and each "entry" belongs to one "act". *) full-text search in the "note" column over all entries: SELECT * FROM entry WHERE entry.note LIKE ('%hui%') MySQL: 4.5 Seconds MonetDB: 0.8 Seconds So this is very good and this motivates me to switch to MonetDB. However, the majority of the acts have the "is_closed" field set. The usual case in my application is to take into account only the entries of open acts: *) full-text search in the "note" column over all entries of the open acts: SELECT * FROM entry, act WHERE entry.act_id = act.id AND act.is_closed = 0 AND entry.note LIKE ('%hui%') MySQL: 0.26 Seconds MonetDB: 0.8 Seconds Here, MySQL can take advantage of the index on the is_closed column, whereas MonetDB does not. Is this intended? Databases without indexes seem strange to me. Markus