No big (or small) deal, or apology needed. If not for a sleep deficit, I would likely have prefaced that with, "I have not taken the time to figure out if that much data is necessary to demonstrate the issues, but ..." My request was not directed solely to you, and I should have made that explicit. So I apologize for making size of one post a bigger issue than it is. One related aspect of this "size" issue merits attention. When a dataset includes columns and rows not pertinent to the issue raised, that makes it harder for people who may be interested in understanding the posed problem, and maybe helping with it, because of the need for scrolling and sifting through a morass of wrapped text. And it's not just harder to comprehend. (This next point is not addressed to you specifically. If the shoe fits, wear it.) When it appears that a poster cannot be bothered to conserve readers' time by weeding out surplusage, it is harder for potentially helpful responders to <b>want</b> to spend their time sifting it out. To me, and I expect this is true for others, a lot of surplusage implies either obliviousness or a calculation resembling "I am not going to bother taking a minute to reduce clutter for the sake of avoiding the waste of N readers' time and attention." Either way, it can be demotivating to somebody considering whether to take their time to help. So I would encourage use of the SELECT and its WHERE clause to trim columns that do not matter for the problem at hand and to get a small enough subset of the rows that the problem is demonstrated without imposing needless scrolling/reading time expenditure. Saving some storage is a bonus.