Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!

From: Raj <raj.kothary_at_thus.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:01:47 +0100
Message-ID: <d7i1ot$t98$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk>

"Paul" <paulsnewsgroups_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lo1p9111m6mnai07htbi96pv8qad6h45hd_at_4ax.com...
>
> andrewst_at_onetel.com wrote:
>
>>Use UNION.
>
>
> Wouldn't UNION ALL be better in case there are duplicates?
>
>
> Paul...

Hi all,

I didn't receive Andrew's post...could it be reposted for my benefit? It was unavailable and deleted from my news server.

Sorry to be a pain!

Regards,
Raj Received on Tue May 31 2005 - 11:01:47 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: andrewst_at_onetel.com: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"
Previous message: Paul: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"
In reply to: Paul: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"
Next in thread: andrewst_at_onetel.com: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"
Reply: andrewst_at_onetel.com: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"
Reply: Ed Prochak: "Re: two tables, one result set, but no join!"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US