>>>BTW, check my other reply with the function similar to yours. In 2001 (when it was written) I put a lot of efforts into it.
>>
>>I have looked at your code. Looks good. I'm gonna check it out in more detail and see if I find a marriage with your code and mine.
>>
>>Shall I pay you any royalties?
>
>I assume it was a joke :)
>
>BTW, if you want to award me somehow let me know the status of your SQL thread - you haven't posted your test results.

Indeed, a joke. Not that you don't deserve a raise or something.

On that SQL, at this time, I am still running with the Derived Tables approach that you showed me at 6-8 seconds per search. I have been playing with other things (like this), so I haven't been back on it yet. But, I plan to.

Thanks again for opening my eyes to that approach. I thought I know a few things about SQL queries, and I was right. However, it could be better stated as "I *only* know a few things about SQL".