>I was thinking that using GROUP BY would be your best solution because you could have an index on that column which would be faster than HAVING or DISTINCT (which are not Rushmore-optimizable, right?).
You'll have to consult the gurus on this one.
You are agreeing that the solution proposed (With perhaps the addition that you would have a regular index for that column to help it run faster) is the best-one, yes??
(because it does use a GROUP BY without a HAVING).
"The Iron Fish: The water is cold...but the fish don't mind"
...Jay Jenks, boyhood chum
