>>Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I always build my queries on the fly, so I have not had the need for this!
>
>Me too,
>After I discover the power of CAs I stop using Views immediately.
>As I said to Naomi the code posted here reminds me the code built from View designer, that is why I assumed that we deal with Views here.

I am the original poster of the question. I inherited the code, and do not have any idea how it was created originally.

Now, I notice that this view is used in multiple places...

It seems to me, that the group is suggesting changing it to a CA. How difficult would this be?

In all forms it is presently used, it is a view that is loaded on startup. Also 3 of the underyling "tables" are views themselves. I requery them prior to requerying the dispatch view.

I think if I change horses, i.e. to CA's right now, I would be opening myself up to a lot of work debugging the code. Which I would likely have to eat, as the customer would balk at the work needed.

This would mean a rethink would it not?

Just wondering about some of these ideas...
----------------
BTW,
I did some more digging, and I too was wondering about the empty clauses and values =0 in the original one. There is no case in the application where either item is empty or not a value rather than 0.

So I removed and modified that, until the new query gave the same result as the old one. (Identical result sets.)


Thanks to all, and this is what makes this a good forum,
Mike