ARGH! The way they describe it, it seems as if they're talking about the query design section. Of course that was after a whole day spend trying to solve a cranky query and using ancient eyes on a tiny laptop computer screen.
Thanks so much for pointing it out.
I am having trouble with two fairly simple queries, so maybe I don't need to do a union after all, but for the life of me I can't think of how to solve this problem, or the right way to word a google search to find the answer.
I have tables with different materials that I've summed based on the supplier and then the type of material. There is a main table grouped by supplier and then the materials are summed by weight.
The second query groups by supplier and then sums weight of a specific type of material. What I want my end product to be is a table that is grouped by suppliers and has a column for all materials totaled by weight and then another just the one type of material summed by weight. Basically a large delivery of materials was made on one day, and I'm trying to split it out by type but still show the overall total.
Anyway, I did a third query joining the first two to do a comparison. It works perfectly, other than the fact that it only returns records that have both all materials and the one type of material. It ignores all of the records that are only totals. There should be approximately 200 records but it's only returning the 60 or so that have both Material A and All Materials (not the names of the headings, they're more like "NETWTALL" and "NETWTGRN"), just as an example.
I hope that makes sense?
thanks!