SQL Join question

Mark Smith Mark_Smith at cpe.umanitoba.ca
Sun Jun 22 10:23:02 EDT 2014

Peter Haworth wrote
> SELECT tableA.*,tableB.* FROM tableA JOIN tableB ON
> tableB.keycolumn=tableA.keycolumn

Hi Peter. So, do I understand correctly that if table A has fields first,
last and table B has fields age, sex and they both have an id column (key
column) then this code would produce a file with fields id, first, last,
age, sex?

And also, that I could do this without having to name each of the columns
individually? If so, this is great because I need to do that as well (and
there are hundreds of columns). My simple database design has 3 tables (a,
b, c) which have unique sets of columns except for a matching ID field. It
would be really great if I could combine all 3 tables into 1 for our data
analysis phase (i.e. width wise, so that if there are 100 records in each
table with 50 columns each the output has 100 records with 150 columns). 

And then, as per my response to John, combine all of the records from the
first device with all of the records from the second device so that I have
just one great big rectangular table to analyze (ie. so if there are 100
records on the first device and 100 on the second the result (after JOINing
the tables on each device) would be 200 records by 150 columns). So I think
the plan would be to run your code above to create 1 rectangular table
consisting of all columns and rows on each device, then export to excel and
combine them into 1 file in excel (with an added field indicating which
device the records came from).

Does this makes sense?


View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/SQL-Join-question-tp4680574p4680591.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the use-livecode mailing list