Number of statements during a specific time

Dear fellows,
I'd like to see how many queries are launched in a hour in a live server. In
order to achieve such information I've though in to open profiler applicatio
n
and then save that information on a .TRC file (encompassing two hours for
example). After that, by DTS export that file to a table and to retrieve the
number of SELECT commited with the help of specific strings (Textdata and
loginname). That will mean know the number of queries launched for our
developers from its QA sessions as well as queries and another things for an
y
kind of processes (If I am not wrong)
It take part of a set of measures intended to demonstrate that we'd need
news hardware requirements, hd, and so on.
Any help/though/advice of how do this better? In aid of faster or reliabilit
y.
Thanks a lot for your input,It is not a good solution due to I've got now 140mb of tracefile for just a
hour!!
Let me know any idea...
"Enric" wrote:

> Dear fellows,
> I'd like to see how many queries are launched in a hour in a live server.
In
> order to achieve such information I've though in to open profiler applicat
ion
> and then save that information on a .TRC file (encompassing two hours for
> example). After that, by DTS export that file to a table and to retrieve t
he
> number of SELECT commited with the help of specific strings (Textdata and
> loginname). That will mean know the number of queries launched for our
> developers from its QA sessions as well as queries and another things for
any
> kind of processes (If I am not wrong)
> It take part of a set of measures intended to demonstrate that we'd need
> news hardware requirements, hd, and so on.
> Any help/though/advice of how do this better? In aid of faster or reliabil
ity.
> Thanks a lot for your input,|||try use performans counters - perfmon (sqlserver:sqlserverstatistics)
but... is is not idealy metod to demonstrate that you need new hardware...
--
Aleksandar Grbic
MCDBA, Senior Database Administrator
"Enric" wrote:

> Dear fellows,
> I'd like to see how many queries are launched in a hour in a live server.
In
> order to achieve such information I've though in to open profiler applicat
ion
> and then save that information on a .TRC file (encompassing two hours for
> example). After that, by DTS export that file to a table and to retrieve t
he
> number of SELECT commited with the help of specific strings (Textdata and
> loginname). That will mean know the number of queries launched for our
> developers from its QA sessions as well as queries and another things for
any
> kind of processes (If I am not wrong)
> It take part of a set of measures intended to demonstrate that we'd need
> news hardware requirements, hd, and so on.
> Any help/though/advice of how do this better? In aid of faster or reliabil
ity.
> Thanks a lot for your input,

Number of SQL Queries too large?

Hi All,

I'm currently in the middle of building quite a large CMS using ASP.NET and MSSQL2K and have began to question if the amount of queries I am using for one page to be built is too many?

For one page (View Forum) I am getting all of the templates and checking access then pulling a list of threads, getting the first and last posts, then user info for the first and last posts... anyway to view 10 threads on the page the number of queries comes to about 54 and the page takes 0.064 seconds to load.

My question is, Is this to many queries to be running for a single page load? All queries are using Stored Procedures.

Thanks Guys.Hi,

Since you are using StoredProcedures, performance shouldnt be bad. However 54 queries for a page is a bit high

Did you try mingling one of these procedures within the other?

Anyway, you can try creating views and writing procedures to retrive data from them incase your queries involve table joins.

indexing your tables might be another good option. These are at the SQL Level.

Hope it helps.|||thanks for your reply,

I actually did see what would happen by pulling all the data in one request using table joins and such and it actually effected performance for the worse =(

I'm not worried about performance as it is currently as fast as I could hope, was just getting concerned about the ammount of requests to the database.

Thanks for your help =)|||Hi,

Your Welcome! As long as the page is served fast, you don't have to worry :)

Because, there will be an automatic timeout, if the executing query takes too much time.

Hope it helps.

Number of Concurrent Queries

Hi,
I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE has
been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL Server
2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
Aravind Melatur
Hi
Are you sure you connected to the CTP version and not MSDE?
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Aravind Melatur" <AravindMelatur@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6302E6AB-027D-4051-9F5C-8B402AFA69B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
> connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE
> has
> been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
> Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL
> Server
> 2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
> this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
> --
> Aravind Melatur

Number of Concurrent Queries

Hi,
I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE has
been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL Server
2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
--
Aravind MelaturHi
Are you sure you connected to the CTP version and not MSDE?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Aravind Melatur" <AravindMelatur@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6302E6AB-027D-4051-9F5C-8B402AFA69B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
> connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE
> has
> been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
> Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL
> Server
> 2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
> this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
> --
> Aravind Melatur

Number of Concurrent Queries

Hi,
I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE has
been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL Server
2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
--
Aravind MelaturHi
Are you sure you connected to the CTP version and not MSDE?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Aravind Melatur" <AravindMelatur@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6302E6AB-027D-4051-9F5C-8B402AFA69B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
> connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE
> has
> been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
> Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL
> Server
> 2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
> this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
> --
> Aravind Melatur

Nulls in indexes

Hi,
If I have a column that allows NULLs and the majority of the queries that
run against the table look for rows when that column is NULL.
Would an index increase the performance of the query?
Thanks,
--AML--Possibly. NULL, seen from am index perspective, is just another value. But i
n the end, usefulness of
an index here is determined by selectivity (how many Null's do you have comp
ared to number of rows),
the query in whole (perhaps there are better indexes) and stuff like that.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Aaron M. Lowe" <alowe@.uic.edu> wrote in message news:e4TTDQ3PFHA.1236@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
..
> Hi,
> If I have a column that allows NULLs and the majority of the queries that
run against the table
> look for rows when that column is NULL.
> Would an index increase the performance of the query?
> Thanks,
> --AML--
>|||It might, if the majority of the rows are not NULL. In this case, the index
will be highly selective with regard to NULLs and a s will be possible
when you query for Col IS NULL. On the other hand, if most of the rows have
a NULL for that column, the index will not be selective and a scan will most
likely be used...
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Aaron M. Lowe" <alowe@.uic.edu> wrote in message
news:e4TTDQ3PFHA.1236@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> If I have a column that allows NULLs and the majority of the queries that
> run against the table look for rows when that column is NULL.
> Would an index increase the performance of the query?
> Thanks,
> --AML--
>|||In addition to the other responses: this index may also be useful if it
is a covering index or clustered index.
Gert-Jan
"Aaron M. Lowe" wrote:
> Hi,
> If I have a column that allows NULLs and the majority of the queries that
> run against the table look for rows when that column is NULL.
> Would an index increase the performance of the query?
> Thanks,
> --AML--

Null values not returns when "Not in List" used on column

Greetings,
I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
Select *
where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
NULLs.
At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
returned in such circumstances?
Thanks.
Paul
Yes, that is normal behavior. When you do a comparison, it is compared
against known values.
NULL represents UNKNOWN values, and therefore cannot be compared.
You should add:
OR Auto.Makers IS NULL
to your WHERE clause.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
|||"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
Firstly, it isn't entirely clear just what query you ran or where your nulls
are because the pseudo-code you posted is not a valid SQL statement. It
always helps to post real code.
Secondly, null never equals null. That's just the way SQL works. If you are
sensible about design then you should avoid using nulls in any way that
forces you to write needlessly complex queries to work around them. Since
you apparently need the null values to be equal to each other one might
conclude that the person who designed your table didn't think properly about
your reporting needs.
Lookup "three-value logic" in Books Online to read about how nulls work.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
|||On 28 Sep 2006 13:58:32 -0700, Paul wrote:
(snip)
>For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
>values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
>Select *
>where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
>It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
>NULLs.
(snip)
Hi Paul,
In addition to the replies by Arnie and David -- would you be willing to
wager a bet that the maker of my car is NOT IN ('Ford','Porsche','VW')?
That is what you seem to expect of your DB. NULL means "no value here".
Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean "has no car", or "self-made
car", or anything else - just "no value here". The DB, like you, has no
idea if I have any car and if so, what make it is - and yet, you expect
the DB to say that the maker of my car is not Ford, Porshe, or VW.
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
|||Arnie,
Thanks. That is what I have been telling them to do. I just recently
picked up any responsability for this database which is an extract from
the database our SAP system runs on top of. Unfortunately for me, SAP
allows them to use NULL values in fields they are attempting to report
from.
Hugo and Arnie,
That clears it up a bit, and this is how I initially explained it to my
users. As usual, they weren't satisfied with the answer since it "just
should work" they way they want it to.
Thanks all.
Paul

Null values not returns when "Not in List" used on column

Greetings,
I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
Select *
where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
NULLs.
At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
returned in such circumstances?
Thanks.
PaulYes, that is normal behavior. When you do a comparison, it is compared
against known values.
NULL represents UNKNOWN values, and therefore cannot be compared.
You should add:
OR Auto.Makers IS NULL
to your WHERE clause.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>|||"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
Firstly, it isn't entirely clear just what query you ran or where your nulls
are because the pseudo-code you posted is not a valid SQL statement. It
always helps to post real code.
Secondly, null never equals null. That's just the way SQL works. If you are
sensible about design then you should avoid using nulls in any way that
forces you to write needlessly complex queries to work around them. Since
you apparently need the null values to be equal to each other one might
conclude that the person who designed your table didn't think properly about
your reporting needs.
Lookup "three-value logic" in Books Online to read about how nulls work.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||On 28 Sep 2006 13:58:32 -0700, Paul wrote:
(snip)
>For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
>values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
>Select *
>where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
>It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
>NULLs.
(snip)
Hi Paul,
In addition to the replies by Arnie and David -- would you be willing to
wager a bet that the maker of my car is NOT IN ('Ford','Porsche','VW')?
That is what you seem to expect of your DB. NULL means "no value here".
Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean "has no car", or "self-made
car", or anything else - just "no value here". The DB, like you, has no
idea if I have any car and if so, what make it is - and yet, you expect
the DB to say that the maker of my car is not Ford, Porshe, or VW.
--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP|||Arnie,
Thanks. That is what I have been telling them to do. I just recently
picked up any responsability for this database which is an extract from
the database our SAP system runs on top of. Unfortunately for me, SAP
allows them to use NULL values in fields they are attempting to report
from.
Hugo and Arnie,
That clears it up a bit, and this is how I initially explained it to my
users. As usual, they weren't satisfied with the answer since it "just
should work" they way they want it to. :)
Thanks all.
Paul

Null values not returns when "Not in List" used on column

Greetings,
I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
Select *
where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
NULLs.
At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
returned in such circumstances?
Thanks.
PaulYes, that is normal behavior. When you do a comparison, it is compared
against known values.
NULL represents UNKNOWN values, and therefore cannot be compared.
You should add:
OR Auto.Makers IS NULL
to your WHERE clause.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>|||"Paul" <pauldi@.iona.com> wrote in message
news:1159477112.303885.194920@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
> I am running MS SQL 2000 here. We've just found that queries with "not
> in list" where clauses do not return the rows that have NULL values in
> the column that the "not in list" clause pertains to.
> For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
> values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
> Select *
> where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
> It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
> NULLs.
> At first I thought it was the reporting software we are using, but then
> I ran the query with query analyzer itself and got the same behavior.
> Is this normal SQL behavior. Besides adding another where clause to
> include NULLs, is there a way on the database side to force NULLs to be
> returned in such circumstances?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
Firstly, it isn't entirely clear just what query you ran or where your nulls
are because the pseudo-code you posted is not a valid SQL statement. It
always helps to post real code.
Secondly, null never equals null. That's just the way SQL works. If you are
sensible about design then you should avoid using nulls in any way that
forces you to write needlessly complex queries to work around them. Since
you apparently need the null values to be equal to each other one might
conclude that the person who designed your table didn't think properly about
your reporting needs.
Lookup "three-value logic" in Books Online to read about how nulls work.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||On 28 Sep 2006 13:58:32 -0700, Paul wrote:
(snip)
>For instance, let's say the column is Auto.makers. The column has the
>values of Ford, Porche, VW, and a few NULL. If you run a:
>Select *
>where Auto.makers NOT IN LIST VW
>It would return all rows with Ford and Porche, but it will not return
>NULLs.
(snip)
Hi Paul,
In addition to the replies by Arnie and David -- would you be willing to
wager a bet that the maker of my car is NOT IN ('Ford','Porsche','VW')?
That is what you seem to expect of your DB. NULL means "no value here".
Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean "has no car", or "self-made
car", or anything else - just "no value here". The DB, like you, has no
idea if I have any car and if so, what make it is - and yet, you expect
the DB to say that the maker of my car is not Ford, Porshe, or VW.
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP|||Arnie,
Thanks. That is what I have been telling them to do. I just recently
picked up any responsability for this database which is an extract from
the database our SAP system runs on top of. Unfortunately for me, SAP
allows them to use NULL values in fields they are attempting to report
from.
Hugo and Arnie,
That clears it up a bit, and this is how I initially explained it to my
users. As usual, they weren't satisfied with the answer since it "just
should work" they way they want it to.
Thanks all.
Paul

Null values in queries...

I am relatively new to SQL and Access...

I am experiencing a problem that involves 3 queries in my 2000 access db.
The first 2 queries each perform a different multiplication calculation, and both work fine when I run them individually. But on the third query, I am trying to sum the values derived in the 2 prior queries (grouping by pk RAA_Num), and am finding that if the derived value of EITHER ONE of the first 2 queries is NULL, then on the third query, NEITHER will show up...

This is the code for that third query I have so far...I am trying to make it so that if a value for one query is null, it will be replaced with 0...

SELECT Expense.RAA_Num, (Sum(IIf(isnull([AA TOTAL CAR LODGE PERDIEM].AATOTALCARLODGEPERDIEM=0, [AA TOTAL MISC].AATOTALMISC=0)))) AS Expr1

FROM (Expense INNER JOIN [AA TOTAL CAR LODGE PERDIEM] ON Expense.RAA_Num = [AA TOTAL CAR LODGE PERDIEM].RAA_Num) INNER JOIN [AA TOTAL MISC] ON [AA TOTAL CAR LODGE PERDIEM].RAA_Num = [AA TOTAL MISC].RAA_Num

GROUP BY Expense.RAA_Num;

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I am so stuck!NZ(column, 0)|||Nvl(column,0)
Cheers|||NVL is Oracle, not Access.