Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I was going through union and union all logic and trying examples. What has puzzled me is why is it necessary to have same number of columns in both the tables to perform a union or union all operation?
Forgive me if my question’s silly, but i couldn’t get the exact answer anywhere. And conceptually thinking, as long as one common column is present, merging two tables should be easy right?(like a join operation). But this is not the case, and I want to know why?
JOIN operations do NOT require the same number of columns be selected in both tables. UNION operations are different that joins. Think of it as two separate lists of data that can be "pasted" together in one big block. You can’t have columns that don’t match.
Another way to look at it is a JOIN does this:
A UNION does this:
JOINS add columns to rows, UNIONS adds more rows to existing rows. That’s why they must "match".