>
>The Where may be faster because it filters in the first phase nut the result but it's no the point. Why use Having if there're no calculated fields? You don't even need GROUP BY, DISTINCT will do.
Now I understand why the original programmer had Having. The code may be used for calculated fields, I was only using an example (this particular case) of a field. So, in order not to break something "else" I will leave the code without change.
Thank you for your help.
"The creative process is nothing but a series of crises." Isaac Bashevis Singer
"My experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all." Oscar Wilde
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." W.Somerset Maugham
