Re: select union with table name

From: Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl>
To: Reece Hart <reece(at)harts(dot)net>
Cc: Akbar <akbarhome(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: select union with table name
Date: 2007-01-02 09:39:16
Message-ID: 459A2844.4020206@magproductions.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Reece Hart wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 19:09 +0700, Akbar wrote:
> Note the 'all' after union... I suspect you'll want that or should at
> least consider it.

Not using it will give the exact same results in a slower way; 'blue'
and 'red' are different, after all. You'll be hard pressed to find a
good excuse for not using UNION ALL here ;)

--
Alban Hertroys
alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl

magproductions b.v.

T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede

// Integrate Your World //

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2007-01-02 09:52:39 Re: Why ContinueUpdateOnError is not implemented in npgsql
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2007-01-02 09:38:16 Re: Application validation of data on insert