Re: Combine two overlapping schema?

2013-03-06 Thread Keith Wiley
Ah.  I was stuck on the requirement that the two schema match, but I see your 
point.  I'll see if that works.

On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:11 , Dean Wampler wrote:

> Of the top of my head, I think UNION ALL should work if you explicitly 
> project out the missing columns with NULL or other values, e.g. using nested 
> SELECTs, something like
> 
> SELECT * FROM (
>  SELECT a,b,c, Y, NULL AS Z FROM table1
>  UNION ALL
>  SELECT a,b,c, NULL AS Y, Z FROM table2
> ) table12; 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Keith Wiley  wrote:
> I have two tables which have overlapping but nonidentical schema.  I want to 
> creating a new table that unions them, leaving nulls in any given row where a 
> column name doesn't occur in the other table:
> 
> SCHEMA 1: { a, b, c, Y }
> row:  { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
> 
> SCHEMA 2: { a, b, c, Z }
> row:  { 5, 6, 7, 8 }
> 
> NEW SCHEMA: { a, b, c, Y, Z }
> new row:  { a:1, b:2, c:3, Y:4, Z:null }
> new row:  { a:5, b:6, c:7, Y:null, Z:8 }
> 
> I don't think either "full outer join" or "union all" works.  I'm not sure 
> how to do this.  Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Keith Wiley kwi...@keithwiley.com keithwiley.com
> music.keithwiley.com
> 
> "You can scratch an itch, but you can't itch a scratch. Furthermore, an itch 
> can
> itch but a scratch can't scratch. Finally, a scratch can itch, but an itch 
> can't
> scratch. All together this implies: He scratched the itch from the scratch 
> that
> itched but would never itch the scratch from the itch that scratched."
>--  Keith Wiley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dean Wampler, Ph.D.
> thinkbiganalytics.com
> +1-312-339-1330
> 



Keith Wiley kwi...@keithwiley.com keithwiley.commusic.keithwiley.com

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
   --  Galileo Galilei




Re: Combine two overlapping schema?

2013-03-06 Thread Dean Wampler
Of the top of my head, I think UNION ALL should work if you explicitly
project out the missing columns with NULL or other values, e.g. using
nested SELECTs, something like

SELECT * FROM (
 SELECT a,b,c, Y, NULL AS Z FROM table1
 UNION ALL
 SELECT a,b,c, NULL AS Y, Z FROM table2
) table12;



On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Keith Wiley  wrote:

> I have two tables which have overlapping but nonidentical schema.  I want
> to creating a new table that unions them, leaving nulls in any given row
> where a column name doesn't occur in the other table:
>
> SCHEMA 1: { a, b, c, Y }
> row:  { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
>
> SCHEMA 2: { a, b, c, Z }
> row:  { 5, 6, 7, 8 }
>
> NEW SCHEMA: { a, b, c, Y, Z }
> new row:  { a:1, b:2, c:3, Y:4, Z:null }
> new row:  { a:5, b:6, c:7, Y:null, Z:8 }
>
> I don't think either "full outer join" or "union all" works.  I'm not sure
> how to do this.  Any ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> 
> Keith Wiley kwi...@keithwiley.com keithwiley.com
> music.keithwiley.com
>
> "You can scratch an itch, but you can't itch a scratch. Furthermore, an
> itch can
> itch but a scratch can't scratch. Finally, a scratch can itch, but an itch
> can't
> scratch. All together this implies: He scratched the itch from the scratch
> that
> itched but would never itch the scratch from the itch that scratched."
>--  Keith Wiley
>
> 
>
>


-- 
*Dean Wampler, Ph.D.*
thinkbiganalytics.com
+1-312-339-1330


Combine two overlapping schema?

2013-03-06 Thread Keith Wiley
I have two tables which have overlapping but nonidentical schema.  I want to 
creating a new table that unions them, leaving nulls in any given row where a 
column name doesn't occur in the other table:

SCHEMA 1: { a, b, c, Y }
row:  { 1, 2, 3, 4 }

SCHEMA 2: { a, b, c, Z }
row:  { 5, 6, 7, 8 }

NEW SCHEMA: { a, b, c, Y, Z }
new row:  { a:1, b:2, c:3, Y:4, Z:null }
new row:  { a:5, b:6, c:7, Y:null, Z:8 }

I don't think either "full outer join" or "union all" works.  I'm not sure how 
to do this.  Any ideas?

Thanks.


Keith Wiley kwi...@keithwiley.com keithwiley.commusic.keithwiley.com

"You can scratch an itch, but you can't itch a scratch. Furthermore, an itch can
itch but a scratch can't scratch. Finally, a scratch can itch, but an itch can't
scratch. All together this implies: He scratched the itch from the scratch that
itched but would never itch the scratch from the itch that scratched."
   --  Keith Wiley