Quoting Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There already is an operator, and it is the ANSI SQL operator "IS". Just > because "IS" does not use puctuation characters does not mean it is not > an operator.
"IS" is not an operator in postgresql, at least not in the same sense that "=" is an operator. You can not do "\do is" while "\do =" works fine. > select coalesce(string_column,'') from some_table ; Will postgresql still make effective use of the indexes if I use a function like coalesce on the column before comparing it? Even if it does, the method I already use is more effective. > If you still don't understand, then use MySQL it is messed up and allows > weird things like most of what you want to do. 1) I understand the issues involved perfectly. I just happens to have a table where it would be usefull that NULL=NULL is true. It is not so, and therefore I have to use a syntax that is hard to read and I have been made to understand that I will have to accept that. Fine. 2) What kind of crap is that flaming me like this? Do all users that ask a question about why postgresql or the sql standard implements a feature in a specific way, end up being told to switch to mysql? 3) Mysql knows how to compare nulls: mysql> select null=null; +-----------+ | null=null | +-----------+ | NULL | +-----------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) mysql> select null is null; +--------------+ | null is null | +--------------+ | 1 | +--------------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) Baldur ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]