>>>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

Given the fact it's used in several forms it may be harder to change approach. It could be that since the same view is used in multiple forms, it tried to accomodate all possible scenarios, thus the complexity. Perhaps you need to make a separate copy of the view with your changes and put in the particular form is question. Then work all the way out...