I figure you have a reason for considering using nulls but since you didn't
explain the underlying problem you are trying to solve it is hard to comment or
consider. If you share there may someone who can provide a solution that
doesn't violate best practices and common sense.
David J.
On Apr
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> Possibly a dumb question but there isn't much about this.
>> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=postgresql+null+value+disk+space
>> I have some BOOLEAN columns.
>Do I save disk space by having them as NULL instead of FALSE? So my
>>application would have conditional code for NULL and TRUE, instead of >FALSE
>and TRUE.
The short answer:
do not even think about it.
NULL has a well defined meaning within SQL: "we do not know the
value", with "well defin
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Possibly a dumb question but there isn't much about this.
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=postgresql+null+value+disk+space
> I have some BOOLEAN columns. 90% of the cases of the columns is FALSE. Do I
> save disk spa
Doubtful but not sure; Boolean isn't that large a structure anyway...
I'm not sure you'd want to introduce tri-value logic in this case anyway. If
you know something is false why would you claim that you don't know what the
value? Data should first and foremost be accurate and precise. In thi
Possibly a dumb question but there isn't much about this.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=postgresql+null+value+disk+space
I have some BOOLEAN columns. 90% of the cases of the columns is FALSE. Do I
save disk space by having them as NULL instead of FALSE? So my application
