asp.net 1.1

I have two DataTables with identical structures I want to combine, as if
I had used UNION in the select statement. I know I could just loop
through and add rows from one table to the other but that seems like it
might be pretty inefficient. Is there a cleaner way or is looping my
best bet? Thanks!

Matt

"MattB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> I have two DataTables with identical structures I want to combine, as if I
> had used UNION in the select statement. I know I could just loop through
> and add rows from one table to the other but that seems like it might be
> pretty inefficient. Is there a cleaner way or is looping my best bet?
> Thanks!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...ataTable+merge


--
http://www.markrae.net

MattB schreef:
> asp.net 1.1
>
> I have two DataTables with identical structures I want to combine, as if
> I had used UNION in the select statement. I know I could just loop
> through and add rows from one table to the other but that seems like it
> might be pretty inefficient. Is there a cleaner way or is looping my
> best bet?

What about using DataSet.Merge?


--
Tim Van Wassenhove - Read my mind <url:http://www.timvw.be/>

MattB wrote:
> asp.net 1.1
>
> I have two DataTables with identical structures I want to combine, as if
> I had used UNION in the select statement. I know I could just loop
> through and add rows from one table to the other but that seems like it
> might be pretty inefficient. Is there a cleaner way or is looping my
> best bet? Thanks!
>
> Matt

Thanks to you both! I actually found a way to do this without having to
combine the tables, so the problem went away.

Matt

"MattB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Thanks to you both! I actually found a way to do this without having to
> combine the tables, so the problem went away.

Are you going to share it with the group...?


--
http://www.markrae.net

Mark Rae wrote:
> "MattB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Thanks to you both! I actually found a way to do this without having
>> to combine the tables, so the problem went away.
>
> Are you going to share it with the group...?
>
>

No. But only because it doesn't really apply to the original question.
Basically it boiled down to a better SQL query using UNION instead of
two distinct queries.

Matt