>Nadya,
>
>I hadn't looked closely at his suggestion, so I qualified my statement with "at least a variation" *grin*
>
>No, I don't think it would not work as is...but you would do a SEEK, and then in the REPLACE WHILE command use an expression with NVL() to get everything to match up. As Larry pointed out, it takes Rushmore out of the picture.
>
I'll test it, thanks.
>>>Hello Nadya,
>>>
>>>Well, I think Larry has given you the answer, or at least a variation of the correct answer. Do a SEEK, and then do a REPLACE WHILE...I think it will be the best performance you can get.
>>
>>Would NULL records be updated by this command?
>>>