>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>This is a very newbie question, I know.
>>>>
>>>>I am trying to understand the SQL Select that Tamar Granor kindly helped me with. It has two JOIN clauses. And THEN, after the second JOIN, there are two ON clauses. I didn't know you can do it. I thought that ON should follow the JOIN immediately.
>>>>And looks like the first ON belong to the top (first) JOIN and the second ON belongs to the bottom (second) JOIN.
>>>>
>>>>My question is, how does SQL Server (or VFP for that matter) knows which ON apply to which JOIN?
>>>>
>>>>TIA
>>>
>>>For all I know, there is the following syntax:
>>>
>>>Syntax one: The ON follows the JOIN, from top to bottom
>>>

>>>SELECT * ;
>>>FROM Cur1 ;                     && - 
>>> INNER JOIN Cur2 ;              && - First Join	&& -
>>>  ON Cur1.Field=Cur2.Field ;    && +            && |
>>> ;                                              && | Second Join (this is: to the result of the first)
>>> INNER JOIN Cur3 ;                              && -        && -
>>>  ON Cur2.Field=Cur3.Field                      && +        && | ....
>>>

>>>
>>>Syntax two: The ONs follows the JOINs, inside to outside
>>>

>>>SELECT *;
>>> FROM Cur1;                                         && -
>>>  INNER JOIN Cur2;              && -                && -
>>>  INNER JOIN Cur3;              && - First Join     && |
>>>  ON Cur2.Field=Cur3.Field;     && +                && | Second Join (this is: to the result of the first)
>>> ON Cur1.Field=Cur2.Field                           && +
>>>

>>>
>>>You are free to mix the styles. It might create a headache, but is it possible.
>>>
>>>Update: tab to space
>>
>>Lutz,
>>
>>Thank you very much for a clear example explaining my question. The second JOIN syntax was new to me.
>>But now I see that if there are two JOIN clauses, and the second JOIN syntax is used, the first ON must be applied to the first JOIN.
>
>??? The second example:
>The JOIN between Cur2 and Cur3 (ie the second JOIN) is the first or innermost ON (Cur2.Field=Cur3.Field). It might differ on different engines, but this at least is what VFP is doing. At one moment in time I switched some hundred views from 2 to 1 (while setting up the views to CA) , so there is remembrance of this.

In my case, this particular SQL Select will work only on MS SQL Server. I do not support VFP DB in this particular application.
And so far, I have been testing the approach suggested by Tamar, it works. Not that I doubt that a young and inexperienced person like Tamar could suggest a wrong approach :)