>>Hi,
>>Execution Plan for my query is attached - but Naomi's suggestion runs in 5 secs whereas mine was taking 25 so that's good enough.
>>
>
>Yes, Naomi's code hits the "sweet spot" - and (not "but") it's important to understand "why". Take a look at the execution operators now in the new query, and compare it to the old plan. Notice a difference? :)

Nested loops?

I guess what I'd really forgotten about was the difference between WHERE and HAVING :-{