Re: SQL - View with two tables?

Paul Dixon wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3ED4C0DE.A4345B56_at_exxesolutions.com...
> > 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.
>
> Daniel,
>
> before table partitioning became available, it was very common to have
> multiple tables with identical structures within data warehouses. They were
> absolutely essential to enable batch processing to be completed in
> acceptable timescales.
>
> Paul Dixon

Of that I am well aware. I see no evidence that this is the case here.

Far more common is schemas designed by people that wouldn't know an intersecting entity if it bit their hand off at the wrist.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)