Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
- To: "Emmanuel Charpentier,,," <charpent(at)bacbuc(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
- Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:56:32 +0000
- Message-id: <3A4D16A0.6B3ADD6A@alumni.caltech.edu> <text/plain>
> Could someone explain to me why not eliminating nulls destroys the
> potential results of the query ? In other words, for any X not null, X
> not in (some NULLs) is false.
You already know the answer: comparisons to NULL always evaluate to
false. You may conclude that this exposes a flaw in SQL9x's definition
of three-value logic, but is the result you should expect for a
standards-compliant SQL implementation.
- Thomas
(I was going to say "almost always" rather than "always" but I'm not
recalling a counter example and don't have time to look it up. Sorry
about that... ;)
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- References:
- NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- From: Emmanuel Charpentier,,,
- NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- Prev by Date: Java and Postgresql
- Next by Date: Re: GNU readline and BSD license
- Previous by thread: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- Next by thread: Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?
- Indexes: