>Hi George
>
>I'm enjoying this discussion. I hope there is no tension. You lost me on the last paragraph. I don't expect I'd be creating multiple redundant SQLs. If anything, I'd just create individual prgs for the sub-queries, so they can be shared and maintained as necessary.
>
>>>I think relevence is the very heart of the issue. I fear most think the non-aggregate fields are very relevant and rely on them. But if they are not relevant, then why include them in the selection list? See message #779327

Hey Mike,

Nah, no tension. In my situation there's a de-normalized table (necessitated by the business rules). As I said before, the non-aggregate fields are not used or displayed and, therefore, not relevant. I'm used to dealing with, as any good programmer should be, the worst case scenario. Admittedly, this case is an extreme, but has to be dealt with nonetheless.