By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,197 Members | 975 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,197 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Different Append Query

P: n/a
Bob
Hi all,

I have two tables that have the same type of indexes and I want to
include all records from both tables in the query once (even if the
indexes do not match). So basically I want to do the same action as an
append query by showing a result set combining both sets of data but I
do not want to use a table, I want a query so it is updated
automatically once I re-import new data into the database.

Does anyone have any ideas please?

Cheers.

Jan 15 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
I guess you are looking for UNION query's

Like:
Select * FROM Table1
UNION Select * FROM Table2;

Arno R
"Bob" <sc*******@colonialfirststate.com.auschreef in bericht news:11**********************@l53g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Hi all,

I have two tables that have the same type of indexes and I want to
include all records from both tables in the query once (even if the
indexes do not match). So basically I want to do the same action as an
append query by showing a result set combining both sets of data but I
do not want to use a table, I want a query so it is updated
automatically once I re-import new data into the database.

Does anyone have any ideas please?

Cheers.
Jan 15 '07 #2

P: n/a
"Arno R" wrote
I guess you are looking for UNION query's
Like:
Select * FROM Table1
UNION Select * FROM Table2;
But, only if all the Fields, in order, are of compatible Type (but not
necessarily identical Name) in the two Tables... and the original post only
stated that the indexes were the same.

If the Fields are not of identical Type, it's hard for me to imagine why
someone would need to include them in the same Query. If the Fields are of
identical Type, then one needs to review the design, because it often
implies that _data_ is being implied by the Name of the object in which it
is contained, and that the data structure could be normalized and, in the
long run, save effort.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Jan 15 '07 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.