Re: Decide witch table within a union
| From: | Paul Novitski | Date: | Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:23:59 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Decide witch table within a union | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-243867@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
At 10/29/2006 08:04 PM, Ed Lazor wrote:
Sorry, Ed, I had intended my reply to be friendly as well. I'm allergic to smiley-face icons, but I should have tried harder to convey my tone. Dang this poker-faced email!That seems unreasonably harsh.I can see what you mean, but don't take it that way. I was trying to help.
Me neither. You're right. I was only referencing his next email in which he said,What in your view is wrong with a union query that preserves an indicator of which component table a particular record comes from?Read earlier in the thread. He's talking about adding a field to the table and that the value of this field in every single record will be the name of the table the record belongs to. I said I would definitely not recommend doing that.
Would you suggest to use a extra field to hold the table name as default? which I thought was a great idea, but only because I thought he meant the query.Warm regards, Paul