Re: IN clause

From: "Brandon Aiken" <BAiken(at)winemantech(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IN clause
Date: 2006-11-24 14:32:31
Message-ID: F8E84F0F56445B4CB39E019EF67DACBA3C4BFA@exchsrvr.winemantech.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hasn't it been said enough? Don't allow NULLs in your database.
Databases are for storing data, not a lack of it. The only time NULL
should appear is during outer joins.

--
Brandon Aiken
CS/IT Systems Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Martijn van
Oosterhout
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:20 AM
To: surabhi.ahuja
Cc: A. Kretschmer; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] IN clause

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 05:31:07PM +0530, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
> That is fine
> but what I was actually expecting is this
> if
> select * from table where col_name in (null, 'a', 'b');
>
> to return those rows where col_name is null or if it = a or if it is =
b
>
> But i think in does not not support null queries , am i right?

You'll need to check the standard, but IN() treats NULL specially, I
think it returns NULL if any of the elements is null, or something like
that. It certainly doesn't work the way you think it does.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
to litigate.

In response to

  • Re: IN clause at 2006-11-24 12:20:10 from Martijn van Oosterhout

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Allison 2006-11-24 14:54:27 indexes
Previous Message William Leite Araújo 2006-11-24 13:32:09 Re: How to clone a table so that primay and foreign keys remain