That sounds reasonable to me, but better let more experienced hands, particularly in db design, chime in here...
There are some good reasons to allow Null, so perhaps it would be wise to consider some other ideas before plunging forward. :) Just my 0.02 -m- -----Original Message----- From: Randy Chrismon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does Null == ""? > Null is a special value and cannot be tested in the same manner as a > > string > or other value. Yes, there is a difference. If the column is Null, a > comparison operation such as a.field == "" or a.field == "something" > will > both return Null. > Maybe this document will help: > A.5.3 Problems with NULL Values --SNIP lots of good info-- Thanks for the info. Actually, I hadn't gotten as far as thinking about testing. I am at the point of designing some tables to receive an exort from a Lotus Notes database. At some point, the MySQL documentation says that a table with no nullable columns is better/faster than one with. The Lotus Notes database I'm migrating, however, has many fields with no values. I infer from the MySQL documentation that I'm better off doing: create table my_table(a_field varchar(16) NOT NULL default "", ...) and exporting my values from Notes as "" rather than using NULL. Thanks. Randy -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
