>I can't imagine why anyone would want to send back an entire table to be updated if only a row or two has changed. Now, granted, I don't *do* field-level change tracking (but I could do it if necessary without too much hassle), but I *do* only send back changed rows at least.
>
>Hi, Bonnie....I don't think *anyone* has said they throw the entire table back, just for one row. I think this entire discussion has been about only passing back specific columns and the discussed need for two users to modify different pieces of data on the same row at roughly the same time. Since I think you and I handle the UPDATE proc in pretty much the same way, with default null parameters, any changes are, as you said, a matter of handling/checking the specific oolumns in .NET and only passing those up.
>
>Kevin

How do you handle the update statement when the values of the parameters are NULL? Are you using dynamic SQL?