:47
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] Union Query
We know that's the CURRENT fundamental design... We're talking an
extension
to that design for those who would find it useful. I never use many
parts of
UniData - should those be removed because I don't see the need? g
MERGE.LIST has a UNION option.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Burwell, Ed
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:09 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: [U2] [UD] Union Query
Has anyone developed or know of a way to do the equivalent of a
Ed,
When I face this, I build a little BASIC program which builds a UNION
file which is keyed by file * item and then I do the Query against
that file. You could probably build the UNION file from triggers and
always keep it current.
Here's how it works:
If DAILY.FILE has three
I'm with you, Charles. We face this all the time, since Prelude's ADS
splits data into open and history files. Merging lists is all well and
good, but I still have to retrieve data from two separate files. I
always wind up writing Basic to do it, making independent selects from
each file and
Has anyone developed or know of a way to do the equivalent of a UNION query
in UniData? I have 2 files, one is a daily file and the other is a monthly
file. At night the daily records get moved into the monthly file and the
daily file gets cleared. At month-end, the monthly data gets moved into
Not sure if sql is an option for you... but there is a union construct
in it. Both files have a '1' id. The ids are not shown in second
example.
j
SELECT @ID,DT FROM DAILY UNION SELECT @ID,DT FROM MONTHLY;
DAILY.DT1...
1 12-30-2001
1 08-12-2010
2
fuctionality here...
David W.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Norman Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:32 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] Union Query
I'm with you, Charles. We face this all the time
@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] Union Query
Question for everyone then: Should IBM invent a method to extend the Query
languages of UniData/UniVerse to do this 'Temporal File' - a Cross Data
File SELECT/LIST/SORT?
That is, should the logic for handling multiple datafiles with a common
dictionary
David,
I'd vote for that! Here's the language I'd suggest:
SORT, LIST, SELECT, SSELECT (at minimum) should allow for data in
multiple data levels as an option. The keyword SPANNING would be used to
indicate which data levels or SPANNING ALL for all data levels. When
Spanning is used,
useful to us.
Victor St. Clair
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Wolverton
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:26 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] Union Query
Question for everyone then: Should IBM
I vote no. The UV/UD query language is fundamentally designed to work
against one file with correlatives/I-types pointing to any other tables
from which we require related data. This is something at the core of our
environment. The problem here is, shall we say, problematic database
design.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Charles Barouch
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:14 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] Union Query
David,
I'd vote for that! Here's the language I'd suggest:
SORT, LIST
on some new fuctionality here...
David W.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Norman Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:32 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] Union Query
I'm with you, Charles. We face
, May 16, 2007 10:14 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] Union Query
David,
I'd vote for that! Here's the language I'd suggest:
SORT, LIST, SELECT, SSELECT (at minimum) should allow for data in
multiple data levels as an option. The keyword SPANNING
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:21 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] Union Query
I vote no. The UV/UD query language is fundamentally designed
to work against one
Which we were you speaking of? Just kidding, seemed like such a great
sentence I could not resist.
Anyway, since it already exists in Universe my guess would be that
implementing multi part files would be easier, and less kludgey, than
implementing some sort of file spanning, temp file
Bill,
Sure does.
CREATE.FILE ML
CREATE.FILE DATA ML,TOO
You end up with one DICT and two DATA levels.
- Chuck Just Retested It Barouch
Bill Haskett wrote:
Does UV have multi-level files?
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit
: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:33 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] Union Query
Which we were you speaking of? Just kidding, seemed like such a great
sentence I could not resist.
Anyway, since it already exists in Universe my guess would be that
implementing multi part files
18 matches
Mail list logo
