Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
swims01
Yak Posting Veteran
59 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-06-08 : 13:48:25
|
| Is it possible to use the UNION command on rows instead of columns?From what I've gathered you can have two queries with the same amount of columns and use UNION (or UNION ALL) to group the results into one list.I've got one query with 3 rows of results & 5 columns and another query with 3 rows of results & 1 column.Is it possible to somehow merge that 1 column from the second query into the other?If it's not possible or difficult then I'm not too worried about it.Thanks. |
|
|
jimf
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2875 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-08 : 14:06:10
|
| You just have to use "place holders'SELECT col1,col2,col3,col4,col5FROM table1UNIONSELECT col1,0,0,0,0 (or col1,null,null,null,null)FROM table2As long as the top query and bottmom queries "match up" you can do it.Jim |
 |
|
|
TG
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
6065 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-08 : 14:25:44
|
| UNION ALL does union rows (not columns). So that a 3 row result set UNION ALLed with another 3 row result set returns 6 rows. And as Jim says you need to have the same column count and column order from both queries. Perhaps you mean that you want still three rows but with 6 columns? If that is the case then you just need to INNER JOIN the two tables on based on a correlating column.Be One with the OptimizerTG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possible to use UNION on rows instead of columns?