Re: Sorting by NULL values

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Ian Burrell <ib(at)onsitetech(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sorting by NULL values
Date: 2003-03-04 22:01:59
Message-ID: 1046815319.15229.87.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:13, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Ian Burrell wrote:
>
> > I am doing a query where I need to sort by a column that may be NULL
> > because it is coming from an OUTER JOIN. I noticed a difference between
> > PostgreSQL and other databases about where NULLs show up. It seems that
> > with Postgres, NULLs are sorted after other values. Other databases
> > sort them before.
>
> > Is there any standard on how sorting NULLs work? Is there a way to

If you care, order by their boolean equivelent first:

order by field is null desc, field

DESC puts nulls first, since true > false

> IIRC, they're either considered greater than or less than non-NULL values,
> but the decision is up to the implementation.
>
> > change Postgres's behavior? Is there a way to replace the NULLs with
> > empty strings?
>
> Coalesce should work.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Miriam Fernández Galicia 2003-03-04 22:24:21 unsuscribe
Previous Message Tomasz Myrta 2003-03-04 21:35:09 Re: LIMIT and SUBQUERIES