Heh, each source defines their own table definition, and they do match sometimes, but sometimes they don't.
People don't always query their columns, they usually just go find string in column, so I see your point, believe me. The programmer in me says what if they need to query > X ... then I'll be string parsing all the rows that their type belongs to. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Simon Slavin <slavins at bigfraud.org> wrote: > > On 17 Jul 2015, at 5:27pm, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sorry, they do not have the same definition. They are different >> definitions. I just want to view the data in a view such that all rows >> from all tables can be seen sorted by time. > > You have designed 600 to 800 different table definitions for one program ? > Really ? How big is your breain to be able to understand them all at the > same time ? > > It is far simpler to figure out how to put your data into one table than it > is to keep merging your tables every time you do a SELECT. > > Could you use an affinity of NONE in some columns and put whatever data you > like in them ? > > Simon. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
