Re: SQL - View with two tables?

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3ED4C0DE.A4345B56_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> Xaver Trapichler wrote:
>
> > ... thanks a lot, I did it and it works great ...
> >
> > Xaver
>
> While it may have worked group ... I would make the following
> suggestion.
>
> 1. Use UNION ALL as it is substantially faster unless you have a need
> to exclude duplicates ... identical information appearing in both
> tables.
>
> 2. Having two tables with identical structure is a violation of every
> rule of data normalization of which I can think.
> The two tables should be merged into one with an added column indicating
> the data type of the corresponding record.
> What you are doing is never necessary and should never be done.

How about when one is an archive table that you normally wouldn't want to slow down your online access? Normalization for it's own sake isn't necessarily a good thing.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://movieposterbiz.com/website%20images/Japanese/Never%20Say%20Never%20Again.htm