Combine result sets

Hi,
In my project, I need to combine multiple result sets into one single result
set for further processing. However, the result sets are not having the
same table structure and therefore I can't use union. Any ideas on how I
should do it?
Thanks.Cherly
Create a temporary table , so some of the columns will contrain NULLs or
create DEFAULT constraint
"Cheryl" <justtosayhi@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:BA3FE0A3-D1C9-41C7-B10B-5DDFB0C16284@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> In my project, I need to combine multiple result sets into one single
> result set for further processing. However, the result sets are not
> having the same table structure and therefore I can't use union. Any
> ideas on how I should do it?
> Thanks.|||On Sep 19, 10:33 pm, "Cheryl" <justtosa...@.excite.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In my project, I need to combine multiple result sets into one single result
> set for further processing. However, the result sets are not having the
> same table structure and therefore I can't use union. Any ideas on how I
> should do it?
> Thanks.
overall it's easier to ensure that result sets have identical
structure.
add something like this to you result sets:
CAST(NULL AS MissingColumnType) AS MissingColumnName|||How different are the recordsets ? Is it just a question of creating a
couple of columns with '' as the value, so you can
get to the point of using UNION
--
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Need an IT job? http://www.ITjobfeed.com/SQL
"Cheryl" <justtosayhi@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:BA3FE0A3-D1C9-41C7-B10B-5DDFB0C16284@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> In my project, I need to combine multiple result sets into one single
> result set for further processing. However, the result sets are not
> having the same table structure and therefore I can't use union. Any
> ideas on how I should do it?
> Thanks.

Column detach task ?

Sometimes you have some columns in the dataflow that you at some point in the flow doesn't need in the further flow. So maybe a tast or an option for disabling columns that are no longer in use

Why do you think this would be of benefit? If its for disabling those columns at design-time then I think its a good idea. I think "disabling|" is the wrong word however, "hiding" would be more appropriate!

This wouldn't have any benefit on runtime performance because the query plan will still allocate memory buffer space for those columns and that buffer space will still be occupied even after the components that use the column have finished executing.

As ever, if you have a suggestion for future enhancement then register it at the feedback center (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/default.aspx). Then put a link to it up here - I would vote for a request to be able to hide columns in the designer.

-Jamie