X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F5D9F9D99
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 22 May 2006 16:07:45 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 01154-03
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 22 May 2006 16:07:39 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
	[212.227.126.177])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AAF9F9B01
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 22 May 2006 16:07:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [134.60.236.94] (helo=lunix.schabi.de)
	by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu7) with ESMTP (Nemesis),
	id 0ML2Dk-1FiFkb14Gx-0000fT; Mon, 22 May 2006 21:07:33 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by lunix.schabi.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331561EE31F;
	Mon, 22 May 2006 21:07:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <44720BF6.6050109@logix-tt.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:07:34 +0200
From: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mark.dingee@cox.net
CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question on UNION
References: <21062336.1148324291670.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml05.mgt.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <21062336.1148324291670.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml05.mgt.cox.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de
	login:a9554655f07a4e401310f2acfb43f5bf
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200605/171
X-Sequence-Number: 25202

Hi, Mark,

mark.dingee@cox.net schrieb:

> I ran into something I wasn't expecting while developing a new
> application.  I have two similar tables that are occasionally unioned
> pulling only about 3 fields from each.  During my testing phase I
> noticed that the union statement was returning what appeared to be a
> distinct list rather than a pure union such as is illustrated below:

This is the documented behaviour of UNION, if you don't wand duplicate
elimination, use UNION ALL.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-select.html documents this
nicely.

HTH,
Schabi