makes sense - thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: Darin Strait <dstrait@e...>
To: sql language <sql_language@p...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: [sql_language] Re: using distinct


> It's just the way that union works. It assumes that both halves (or as
many
> parts as there are, you can chain unions together) of the union comprise
the
> resultset that you want and then it sorts both of them. There are
> workarounds if you want to discriminate between parts of the union.
>
> Darin Strait, MS SQL Server Development and Administration
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dstrait/professional/resume.htm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Goldman" <mg188@h...>
> To: "sql language" <sql_language@p...>
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 8:09 PM
> Subject: [sql_language] Re: using distinct
>
>
> > Thanks Darin - Beth Breidenbach gave me a similar answer yesterday,
which
> > works great.  A question still remaining is why adding an "order by"
> clause
> > against one (ONLY) of the select statements yields the whole set of
> results
> > in alphabetical order. This is how I need them, but I'm very curious how
> the
> > program knows to do this.
> >
> > In other words, why does it also sort the results from the second
> statement?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike