So all these tables have identical attributes, and have been implemented using GEOMETRY storage with identical parameters? And none of them are versioned? And they've all beenconfigured with different, non-overlapping rowid sequences? Then if Microsoft supports UNION ALL views with GEOMETRY, and the performance is adequate, it might be possibleto register the resulting view.But you'd still get better performance if you appended the various pieces into a new singletable, and set up a replication mechanism for this "materialied view" from the component tables.- V
What kind of view? It sounds like you want a UNION ALL join, which is tricky, at best.Best practice for views is often to use native geometry, edit the view natively, thenregister it when you've got it working correctly. For SDEBINARY storage, this wouldn'twork, and you're tightly constrained on how you can create the view (I'll generally make a fake table with the columns defined as I'll need them, join that in a view,then edit the view after, but you have to be *really* careful not to break the view).- V
Signed in members can post, follow updates, and more. New here? Register a free account.
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.