Unless you've reason not to, I would just list 15 fields in the select and group on them.

>
>I'm not sure that I said I could use GROUP BY on all fields, and I certainly didn't mean to. Since I'm doing SUM(AMT), certainly I couldn't group by the AMT field, could I?
>
>The first time I stumbled over this problem, I had about 15 fields that were always identical for each occurence of "OrdNbr" (so these should have been in one table), and about 6 more that were really detail items (part, quantity, price, etc.) that should have been in a separate table. My ultimate goal is to get a table with all the 15 fields that belong in an "Order table" (one record per unique OrdNbr), along with one or more fields that are a summary from what should have been in the detail table.
>
>My apologies if my posts did not make this clear.
>
>Jim
>
>P.S.: As you've noted quite recently, it's almost impossible to pose a question in this forum and provide too much information about it. Being aware of that, I tried to be as explicit as possible in my post. Reminds me of an old algorithm for estimating the time to do a project ... take your best possible guess on how long it will take, and add 25%. As you can see, having done this, you now have a new best possible guess, to which you have to add ....
>