×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 26 Jun 2013 08:14, Hoteltravelfundotcom wrote:
I want to merge the data from 2 PF but having the same field names
in the new file.
file1: ITEM1, ITEM2, ITEM3, OTHER1
file2: ITEEM1, ITEEM2, ITEEM3, OTHER1
NEW_FILE:
ITEM1
ITEM1 (** was called ITEEM1)
ITEM2
ITEM2 (** Was called ITEEM2)
ITEM3
ITEM3 (** WAS called ITEEM3)
OTHER1
OTHER1
So almost exactly like the SQL statement that Scott offered earlier,
is presumably an acceptable resolution. However there was still no
clarification of what is the /reporting/ being utilized to enable one to
know or infer if the SQL VIEW may be acceptable; e.g. if the file must
be keyed in order for the /reporting/ to function properly, then a VIEW
can not suffice by itself. A revision of the statement offered earlier,
follows the link to the archived message with that statement:
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201306/msg01048.html
CREATE VIEW NEW_FILE (ITEM1, ITEM2, ITEM3, OTHER1) AS
SELECT ITEM1, ITEM2, ITEM3, OTHER1
FROM file1
UNION ALL /* or maybe desirable instead: UNION DISTINCT */
SELECT ITEEM1, ITEEM2, ITEEM3, OTHER1
FROM file2
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
