Re: Sub-query having NULL row returning FALSE result

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sub-query having NULL row returning FALSE result
Date: 2016-06-29 06:28:03
Message-ID: 25435.1467181683@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE emp (id INTEGER unique, ename VARCHAR);
> postgres=# INSERT INTO emp VALUES (null, 'aaa');
> ...
> postgres=# INSERT INTO emp SELECT * FROM (SELECT 5::integer id,
> 'eee'::varchar ename) nr WHERE id NOT IN (SELECT id FROM emp);
> INSERT 0 0

This is expected. NOT IN can never succeed if there are any nulls
returned by the sub-select, because the nulls represent "unknown",
and so it's unknown whether there is a match to the outer "id"
value, and WHERE takes a null (unknown) result as false not true.
Certainly there are things to quibble with in that behavior, but
it's what's been required by the SQL standard since 1992.

> but this is working with other databases

Really? None that are compliant with the SQL standard, for sure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mohd abdul azeem 2016-06-29 07:36:12 Enquiry
Previous Message Sridhar N Bamandlapally 2016-06-29 06:07:26 Sub-query having NULL row returning FALSE result