From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Paul" <magamos(at)mail(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NOT IN (NULL) ? |
Date: | 2010-10-31 17:19:14 |
Message-ID: | 24334.1288545554@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Paul" <magamos(at)mail(dot)ru> writes:
> But there is not such thing in PostgreSQL as empty set as "IN ()" that must be
> false, because nothing element may be found in empty set.
> And I thought that instead of "IN ()" I could use "IN (NULL)", but I
> was failed and result was NULL and not FALSE. :(
NULL is not an alternative spelling for an empty set.
You could get an empty IN set by using a sub-select yielding no rows,
for example
regression=# select 1 in (select 1 where false);
?column?
----------
f
(1 row)
regression=# select 1 not in (select 1 where false);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Farber | 2010-10-31 17:28:56 | Re: Implementing replace function |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-31 17:08:16 | Re: NOT IN (NULL) ? |