Talk:Set operations (SQL)

Merge

One could reasonably write an article about union in databases along with common implementations, examples, and so on, but we don't need articles on individual SQL commands. Merge into SQL. Deco 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the merge. I'm trying to clean up the database articles, and what I'd like to do is get the SQL operators defined much better than they are now. That would result in a description of the underlying algebra (independent of SQL), and result in an article that's a little too large if the statements are all lumped into one. It also problably means we rename the article "UNION (database)". -- Mikeblas 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a one-to-one correspondence though between relational algebra operators and SQL operators. I'm not sure how this would work out. Deco 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Union (SQL) INTO SQL would be akin to merging addition into mathematics. SQL is not a complex language, but the myriad nuances of each command, statement, and operator makes a good argument for segregating them into their own articles. CodeNaked 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]