Shoaib Mir wrote:
> So hmm a UNION with an ORDERY BY should be good for this scenario...
Only if the order matters to the OP, but he can always perform an ORDER
BY on the queries on his view. I don't really see the point.
The main difference between UNION and UINION ALL is that the latter
allows
So hmm a UNION with an ORDERY BY should be good for this scenario...
--
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 2/13/07, Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shoaib Mir wrote:
> I guess UNION ALL should work good here instead of a UNION for the exact
> same kind of output he needs
Shoaib Mir wrote:
I guess UNION ALL should work good here instead of a UNION for the exact
same kind of output he needs:
That would be UNION ordering the results to remove duplicate rows which
UNION ALL doesn't do. Technically the results from any query can come
back in any order unless an OR
I guess UNION ALL should work good here instead of a UNION for the exact
same kind of output he needs:
SELECT id,desc FROM table1
UNION ALL
SELECT id,desc FROM table2;
---+---
1 | A
2 | B
3 | C
1 | D
2 | E
3 | F
As UNION gave me a little different output, like this:
---+--
1 | A
1 | D
2 | B
2
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
Hello List,
I want to append column of two different tables in a single column of a view .
data type of tow column of two diffrent tables will be same.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS:
Table 1
ID DESC
1 A
2 B
3 C
Ashish Karalkar wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I want to append column of two different tables in a single column of a view
> .
>
> data type of tow column of two diffrent tables will be same.
>
> WHAT I WANT TO DO IS:
>
> Table 1
> ID DESC
> 1 A
> 2 B
> 3 C
>
