Re: Maximun number of unions in a single query

Andreas Sheriff wrote:
> Hey now,
> That's not nice.
>
> You don't even know what I'm using multiple unions for.
> Instead you jump to conclusions like the mendicant you are.
>
> --
> Andreas
> Oracle Certified DBA and PL/SQL Developer
>
> "If you don't eat your meat, you cannot have any pudding.
> "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?!"
> ---
>
> WARNING:
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
> Reply to me only on this newsgroup
> <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1118148490.504932.143480_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Billy wrote:
> >> Andreas Sheriff wrote:
> >> > Does anyone know the maximum number of unions you can use in a SQL
> >> > query?
> >>
> >> Oh, that is easy. It is directly related to the idiot factor of the
> >> writer of the SQL.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Billy
> >
> > OR we can run with this quite accurate assessment of the situation.
> >
> > My vote says this is the optimal response.
> >
> >
> > David Fitzjarrell
> >

You truly have given us no other choice, have you? Mind-reading is not a passtime in which we engage, and you've certainly provided no information on WHY such information is so important to you. Possibly another solution could be presented should one know WHAT you are intending to accomplish. Of course, since you haven't seen fit to dispense with such a description of your 'problem' you have absolutely no reason to respond as you have done. And I've yet to understand why any respondent to this thread is considered by you to be a 'beggar', unless you're unclear upon the meaning of the word 'mendicant'.

When, and if, you will provide your rationale for asking such a question possibly a suitable solution can be presented.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Tue Jun 07 2005 - 16:11:02 CDT