| From: | Mladen Gogala <gogala(dot)mladen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Select .... where id not in (....) returns 0 incorrectly |
| Date: | 2022-04-05 23:25:24 |
| Message-ID: | 71a6ae74-79ca-09c6-2e9c-a7f4d86b176f@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 4/4/22 09:21, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> This was actually the case, I forgot there is 1 NULL-value in that list.
> Personally, I think NULL should be treated as a seperate value and not lead to
> strange behaviour.
NULL is strange. Relational databases use ternary, not binary logic. In
the woke vernacular, one could say that Postgres is non-binary. NULL
literally means "no value". It is a part of the standard, so we have to
deal with it, Codd help us. However, based on my lifelong experience
with Oracle, NULL values are bad and are best avoided. Postgres is more
forgiving than Oracle because in Postgres, the condition "is not null"
can be resolved by index. In Oracle, it can not.
--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
Tel: (347) 321-1217
https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2022-04-06 06:19:57 | Re: Select .... where id not in (....) returns 0 incorrectly |
| Previous Message | Michael Lewis | 2022-04-05 17:01:16 | Re: Serializable read only deferrable- implications |