Thanks for the heads up Dragan! From now on, I'll only use the word only when it is the only word that will fit the situation! :-)

(***ducking for cover!***)

>>>Al alternative if what you really wanted was the two tables merged without any duplicates would be to UNION them together then do a GROUP BY on every field in the table. The result is all records from both tables without duplicates.
>>
>>Isn't the default union clause distinct? That is to say, it only grabs one record if there are two or more dups?
>
>PMFJI, this has nothing to do with the subject, it's language that gives me trouble.
>
>Never got myself to completely understand the loose positioning of the word "only" in English. In my language, this could be misunderstood as "it only grabs it, but doesn't do anything else with it", or "it grabs it only if there are two or more, otherwise it doesn't grab it at all".
>
>Is this sentence correct in English: "it grabs only one record if there are two or more dups"? Or is it equally correct as your original sentence, or... well, do I actually have to think twice about "what did the poet want to say" when I get across another sentence where the "only" is not close enough to the thing it quantifies?
>
>I was not much confused with your sentence, because I knew what you're talking about (burned my fingers on that default DISTinct behavior of Union 7 years ago), but, generally, I do get confused, or just have to think long enough to miss the next sentence :).