I've got something wrong as I get "The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, and subqueries, unless TOP is also specified."

The extra field doesn't bother me (yet anyway) so for now...I think...I like the field :)

>I think the reason for this suggestion is if you don't want to have one extra field in your result set.
>If this is not a problem for you, you can use your original select and don't use derived table (not sure if there would be any slowdown by doing this anyway, probably not).
>
>>I'm not following? Wait a minute... I think I see... I'm going to try that, hold the phone.
>>
>>>Yes, something like that. You may have to specify ORDER BY by column # if SQL Server complains. You can also get rid of that additional column using current query as derived table
>>>
>>>SELECT Empid, EmpName, OverTime, DoubleTime, TotalHours1 FROM (
>>> -- your select here
>>> -- Order by column position instead of names
>>> ORDER BY 1,6
>>>) dt1
>>>
>>snip...
>>>>snip...