Re: tuple compare involving NULL

From: Tobias Florek <postgres(at)ibotty(dot)net>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Subject: Re: tuple compare involving NULL
Date: 2014-08-13 14:28:42
Message-ID: 53EB761A.9040301@ibotty.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

hi and thank you all for your replies,

(you are right, that i had the first example wrong.)

unfortunately

> SELECT (coalesce(NULL, ''), 2, 'a') > (coalesce(NULL, ''), 1, 'b');

or

> (COALESCE(a, -1000), COALESCE(b, -1000)) > (COALESCE(c, -1000),
COALESCE(d, -1000))

will only work for specific data types and not, say, integers or dates.

maybe a little more context might be helpful. i am trying to have
reasonable efficient paging. the query i am building looks like

select t.*
from table t,
(select a, b from table where id = ) q
where (q.a, t.b, t.id) > (t.a, q.b, q.id)
order by t.a desc, t.b asc, t.id asc
limit 10;

where t is a table with column id (primary key, serial), a and b.

that works fine and efficient (given an index (a,b) on t) without NULLs,
but (predictably) not in the presence of NULLs.

i would certainly like to handle that better, but i don't have any ideas
besides manually expanding the tuple comparison.

thank you so far,
tobias florek

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2014-08-13 14:44:14 Re: tuple compare involving NULL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-08-13 14:25:33 Re: tuple compare involving NULL