Hmm... I've never used this before. I'll try it.
Thanks for your help and your quick reply!
--
Matthew Nuzum
www.bearfruit.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Fortunately we have the set functions, specifically UNION ALL in this
> case.
>
> Maybe something like (minus the number of files/empty part):
>
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
> Well, this is somewhat of a follow up to my previous post regarding self
> joins. Now what I'm hoping to do is "virtually" combine the results
> from two different record sets into one apparent record set.
Fortunately we have the set functions, specif
Well, this is somewhat of a follow up to my previous post regarding self
joins. Now what I'm hoping to do is "virtually" combine the results
from two different record sets into one apparent record set.
Here is the skeleton of my application's data structure. There is a
table called "folders" and
