Albert,

This is the kind of info that would have been helpful in the original message!

By the way, when you did provide more details, it was in a 'format' spanning a few screen widths, making it very hard to digest.

Cheers,

Jim N

>>What do you think about using a "group by" or a "select distinct" instead of checking in your second section of your union that the records aren't in your first section.
>
>There will be unwanted records if distinct is used because the is a quaranteed match with the lim_def table. The intent is to only use the lim_def data when the lim_txt data does not exist.