At 9:55 -0700 9/23/02, neal wrote:
>Thanks for the suggestion but this would actually create a new table,
>correct (the first statement that is)? I just want a resultset with these
>values, without writing to disk.
Then you must upgrade to 4.x so that you have UNION support.
Either that, or write a client program that issues multiple SELECT
statements and buffers the results in memory.
What's your objection to creating the new table? Just delete it when
you're done with it.
>On another note, yeah youre right not a different connection object, but I
>presume I would need to run two seperate queries and recieve back two
>From: Paul DuBois [mailto:paul@stripped]
>Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:21 AM
>To: neal; mySQL
>Subject: RE: multi-table select (not a join)
>At 0:23 -0700 9/23/02, neal wrote:
>>Yeah, you're right. That's exactly what I want but apparently it wasn't
>>implemented until v4??!?!?!
>>What did people do prior to version 4 when needing to query multiple
>>Just endure the overhead of multiple connections to the database?
>Not sure why you'd need multiple *connections*. You can use multiple
>*queries*, for example like this:
>CREATE TABLE tmp SELECT ... FROM t1 ...
>INSERT INTO tmp SELECT ... FROM t2 ...
>INSERT INTO tmp SELECT ... FROM t3 ...
>At the end of this, tmp will be the same as if you'd done UNION.
>More precisely, as if you'd done UNION ALL, because duplicates won't
>be removed. To remove them, use SELECT DISTINCT when retriving from