| From: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(dot)dingee(at)cox(dot)net |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question on UNION |
| Date: | 2006-05-22 19:07:34 |
| Message-ID: | 44720BF6.6050109@logix-tt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hi, Mark,
mark(dot)dingee(at)cox(dot)net schrieb:
> I ran into something I wasn't expecting while developing a new
> application. I have two similar tables that are occasionally unioned
> pulling only about 3 fields from each. During my testing phase I
> noticed that the union statement was returning what appeared to be a
> distinct list rather than a pure union such as is illustrated below:
This is the documented behaviour of UNION, if you don't wand duplicate
elimination, use UNION ALL.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-select.html documents this
nicely.
HTH,
Schabi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Penchalaiah P. | 2006-05-23 05:02:12 | i need information regarding schema |
| Previous Message | mark.dingee | 2006-05-22 18:58:11 | Question on UNION |