>Rick,
>I do understand your code. However I am not at all convinced this is correct, you
>don´t have a clairvoyant mind. It is bad practice to make a code based on assuming.
>Let us wait if Yossi is willing to specify his question.
>Rgds
>Koen


Yossi has already said what he wanted. See Message ID: 1586541 where he responds:
"The key is the same, but the data in the other fields ijn the 2nd record is corrupt."

If Yossi has some unique criteria to determine that the second record is not actually the second record in the table as per row order, then it's still up to him to determine that unique index order criteria through the index key he chooses, such as by a datetime or something else. Regardless, the algorithm I gave will still work because it's only based on index order, and that index can be set to anything to create within each index key a "first record," and a "second record," and so on.