Hi Lew.
On Sunday 20 Feb 2011 at 19:13 Lew wrote:
> One trusts that the result columns in the two tables have compatible types.
Yes, the column definitions all match.
> I am curious how you interpret the "id" result in that query.
The IDs have distinct formats that differ between tables, created by the
legacy system that originated the records (P-nnnn and C-nnnn). Each row also
has an integer primary key that my code uses internally, but I don't need it
in these results.
Thanks for the help, I'm looking forward to playing with UNION ALL when I go
back to work tomorrow, and your tip about eliminating the test is interesting.
Cheers,
Mark