Thank you. Both solutions worked very well.

Thanks for both of your responses. Much appreciated. I will try both of them and see what works best for my problem case.

Thank you so much for your response.

Sorry about the late response but this works for what I am trying to do. I will try and expand on it. Thanks guys

Thanks for the reply and the article.

To answer your question, the query is simply trying to delete row by row based on a certain join condition. Its currently using...

Hey Luiz, thanks for your response.

You are right, the data is really something I just made up and created on the fly, you are right there is no change...

Thanks for your response. How do I replace the query above with a set based? What exactly would that look like?

I am not worried about seeing a performance difference...

Wow, interesting. Nice article by Jeff as always.

Thanks guys. I will modify this to suit my needs.

Thanks for the prompt response. Yes your assumptions are correct.

Can you clarify this statement. I think it contains some special characters

SELECT COUNT(*) + 1 FROM #temp1 WHERE DataDifference >...

Oh not at all, I can do it any way I like, it was just something I noticed that both solutions had in common. Thanks guys

Both great solutions, I appreciate them. Seems like there is almost no way to get around using the "Having" clause. Interesting.

Thanks for the responses

Mr and Mrs. 500, the data in there is just something I made up, the duplicates do not matter (or does it?)

Lowell, the logic is to update...

Thank you very much for your responses. They have been taken into consideration.

That worked like a charm. The reason it didn't work for me previously was that I used the dense_rank () over (partition by id). I have learned a lot from...

Thanks but I tried the dense_rank and it didn't work for me. Great piece of information learned though.