Re: View to view SQL

"Lakshmi Jagarlapudi" <jlnarayana_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:UZhqb.87254$9E1.440727_at_attbi_s52...
> I think it is a good idea to create a new view altogether.
>
> For the simple reason, another view creation is not going to occupy any
> space as it is a stored query.
> Secondly, for the queries which are already using the existing view might
> see a difference in performance after you modify
> the existing view definition.

That is a very good point. Thanks.

> If the existing view does not have any aggregate functions then it is all
> the most good reason to create a new view.
>
> Let us know how it works
>
> bye,Lakshmi
>
>
> "Randy Harris" <randy_at_SpamFree.com> wrote in message
> news:9nzob.6741$P%1.5602532_at_newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > I'm not very good with SQL and would appreciate some advice.
> >
> > I have a view in 8.1.7.4 that retrieves nearly a hundred fields from
five
> > different tables. It's long but simple and straightforward, and has
been
> > working quite well for some time. I've just been told that I now need
to
> > also retrieve some SUMs and COUNTs from fields in another table. Rather
> > than modifying this view with 100 Group BYs, I wonder if it is feasible
to
> > create another view that gets the SUMs and COUNTs and then add that
view's
> > output fields to this view's? Is that a smart way to approach this
> problem?
> > Is there a better?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Randy Harris
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 23:18:24 CST