Tables Seem Too Big - Timeouts Happening

I have two problems I need some help with.

First, I've just inherited a system and am delving into a few timeout
problems that are causing problems for the users.

Now, if I do a simple select * from the table (which looks to be the
cause of the problem at this stage) in QA, I get the results back in
less than a second. If I open the table in EM it takes about 10. Is
there a difference in viewing the data this way ? I'm used to EM being
virtually the same speed. There is only one row. Minor question
really, just something I'd like to understand if there is a
difference.

CREATE TABLE [QUERY] (
[QUERY_ID] [numeric](18, 0) IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,
[CAT_ID] [numeric](18, 0) NOT NULL ,
[QUERY_DESCR] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT
NULL ,
[USER_NAME] [varchar] (40) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT
NULL ,
[USER_ID] [int] NOT NULL ,
[IND_EURO] [char] (1) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT [DF_QUERY_IND_EURO] DEFAULT ('N'),
[IND_DGCOLUMNS] [char] (1) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT
NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_QUERY_IND_DGCOLUMNS] DEFAULT ('N'),
[NO_GROUPS] [int] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_QUERY_NO_GROUPS] DEFAULT
(0),
[NO_FIELDS] [int] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_QUERY_NO_FIELDS] DEFAULT
(0),
[NO_LINES] [int] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_QUERY_NO_LINES] DEFAULT (0),
CONSTRAINT [PK_QUERY] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[QUERY_ID]
) WITH FILLFACTOR = 90 ON [PRIMARY] ,
CONSTRAINT [FK_QUERY_QUERY_CATEGORY] FOREIGN KEY
(
[CAT_ID]
) REFERENCES [QUERY_CATEGORY] (
[CAT_ID]
) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

I don't think any re-indexing has been done on this (or the other
tables in the db). I was wondering if constant adding/deleting rows
could cause the index to be massive and in need of a good clear out.
Any pointers would be appreciated. From what I can tell, there was
some problems trying to get replication to work. I need to dig deeper
to see if this is now correct.

-------------------------

Secondly, there is a another table in the same database.

CREATE TABLE [FIELD_DATA] (
[ID] [numeric](18, 0) IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,
[DATA_ID] [numeric](18, 0) NOT NULL ,
[FIELD_ID] [numeric](18, 0) NULL ,
[FIELD_CODE] [varchar] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT
NULL ,
[FIELD_VALUE] [numeric](15, 5) NULL ,
CONSTRAINT [PK_FIELDDATA] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[ID]
) WITH FILLFACTOR = 90 ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

It holds approx 4 million rows. The rest of the tables have minimal
data and about the same amount (consider them the same if you will).
Now, another 'copy' of this database is held elsewhere (different
client data) and this holds 40 million rows. The difference is that
the first DB is 4.5GB and the second 6.5GB (approx). Does this prove
my theory that re-indexing would be a good idea ?

Thanks

Ryan