>George,
>First off, I'm glad you found a solution. That's great!
>
>However, I still don't understand something (and I haet not understanding something once I've taken an interest *s*). From your initial post, it sounded like you had to propagate the same remote query against 5 different databases with the same table names. It also sounded like you needed the same information based on the same fields using the same parameters.
>
>From this post, it doesn't sound like that's the case. The raw data may be the same but the retrieved information is not. You initially specify different parameters (name and datatype) for the different databases. It also sounds like the strcuture changes are not uniform for all databases. While they may have started out the same, time has altered this.
>
>I can see now why one loop wouldn't suffice.

I'm often confused in making things overly complex and lengthy and, in this case, I'm probably guilty of going too far in the other direction trying to make things concise.

Each of the five databases for the plants have 8 remote views. In each case, all eight views are identical to their counterparts in each database. However, within a given database, each of the view is very different in terms of the retrieval critera. For example, one is based on shop order, another style, another, tufted width, gauge and code, and so on.

Could I use GENDBC against one of the modified databases (after fixing the view), then, with a small degree of modification run the resulting program to create the other four databases. Yes, and in fact, I'd done that. I was looking for something that was quicker and easier to do. I think that my solution fits the bill nicely.

The structures and retrieval parameters of the tables are indeed identical between corresponding (and identically named) views. Non-corresponding views are very different.

This wasn't really a big deal. What was happening was that I'd have to run some tests, the underlying structure would be changed and my test would blow up. Naturally, so would I (^&$&^*$$# you folks never told me this was change! DBA comes in my office apologizing profusely, etc.) Then I'd have to go through the "fix the five views" process. It just got to be a pain.

Before anyone jumps in with, "Well, they should've planned better", I'd agree completely. However, the nature of this project is such that even at this point (after a year of work) it's a given that some changes will be required. So having this solution is going to be a time saver for me down the road.

So the bottom line is that I just got tired of doing the same stuff over and over again.

Is this clearer?