From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Vincent Hikida" <vhikida(at)inreach(dot)com>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Postgres general mailing list" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <dev(at)urbanasoft(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Fw: select null + 0 question |
Date: | 2003-07-15 20:41:19 |
Message-ID: | 200307152141.19467.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday 15 Jul 2003 7:38 pm, Vincent Hikida wrote:
> OK. This has been bothering me. I finally recreated what I remember as an
> anomoly in Oracle involving nulls. It also works the same way in
> PostgreSQL. I guess in mind I extrapolated that there was a problem with
> "WHERE 1 IN (1,2,NULL)" which there isn't.
>
> The following is my query in 9i:
>
> SQL> select 1 from dual where 2 not in (1,null);
> no rows selected
>
> The following is in PostgreSQL:
>
> select 1 where 2 not in (1,null)
> ?column?
> ------------
> (0 rows)
> Now that I think about it a little, SQL does make sense. We are sure that
> "1 is in (1,2,NULL)". However we cannot be sure that in 3 is not in (1,2,
> NULL) because the NULL maybe 3 (if you interpret null as being unknown).
> However, the SQL does not work if you have other interpretations of NULL
> (e.g. Null means not applicable, Null means divide by 0).
You might like to look over:
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/BriefGuideToNulls
It's my typing, but I got a lot of input from the list, so it's good stuff.
Sorry I didn't post this link earlier but I'm afraid I didn't look into your
thread until tonight.
--
Richard Huxton
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-07-15 20:52:21 | Re: selects during vacuum |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2003-07-15 20:35:21 | Re: selects during vacuum |