>>It was close enough to get me in the right direction :o) The 2nd part has remained the same. I still have to test it on systems with > 100,000 records. It does test faster than the original. I don't know yet if it is fast enough.
>>
>>
>
>As I said, please compare the results between this variation and UNION ALL (or just UNION) variation. I expect it would yield different results in each case - you need to determine which logic is closer to your requirements.
>
>As for speed, I expect that UNION version will perform with the same speed or may be even faster, but I would appreciate your test cases results, if you can post them here.
Sure, I hope to get to it later today. I have to add 100,000 records to the two tables to do a true simuation. With my tests so far (using about 30,000 records), the other query was much faster but I won't know a real comparison until I get enough records in the table to test.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
