Kovacs Baldvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After these I use ~= if I need lines with NULLs in both to be selected.
Perhaps you should reconsider your data model. You seem to be treating
NULL as if it were a real value, which is something that SQL discourages
rather strongly...
Hi again.
First of all, tank you for the immediate and precise answers.
My solution to the problem was the following. However, I found
that to be quite slow. I would like to ask if one can suggest me
how to optimize this, because I need this regularly.
CREATE FUNCTION gyegyenlo(text, text) RETU
Tom,
> [ Sorry for slow response, I've been out of town ]
Taking a much-deserved vacation, hey? Any new job plans?
> Postgres absolutely does not care: the optimizer will always consider
> both A-join-B and B-join-A orders for every join it has to do. As
> Stephan and Josh noted, you can cons
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Tod McQuillin wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Kovacs Baldvin wrote:
>
> > select NULL = NULL;
> >
> > The answer is: true!!!
>
> This has got to be a bug. NULL is not equal to anything (nor is it
> unequal to anything).
This is because of a hack due to a broken MS client th
Tod McQuillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Kovacs Baldvin wrote:
>> select NULL = NULL;
>>
>> The answer is: true!!!
> This has got to be a bug. NULL is not equal to anything (nor is it
> unequal to anything).
Indeed, this *should* yield NULL. But right now, postgres' pa
Richard NAGY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT aes.ent_id, e.type, e.nom, aes.sect_id as voulu,
> cvd_new(current_date, e.date_entree, 'new') FROM ass_entrep_sectact aes,
> entreprise e WHERE e.id = aes.ent_id and aes.sect_id <> 3 and
> aes.sect_id <> 9
> and aes.sect_id <> 1 and aes.sect_id <>
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Kovacs Baldvin wrote:
> select NULL = NULL;
>
> The answer is: true!!!
This has got to be a bug. NULL is not equal to anything (nor is it
unequal to anything).
SQL uses tri-valued logic, where answers are either true, false, or
unknown.
When selecting where a = b, if eith
Sorry, I made a mistake in my previous letter,
the table b looks like this:
b)
y | z
100 (not 1) | 'Hallelujah'
NULL| 'Hmm...'
Bye,
Baldvin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensiv
Hi!
I probably found an inconsistence of the working of the =
operator. Please read ahead, if you're interested.
I have two tables, let't call them a and b. They are:
a)
x | y
-
1 | 100
2 | NULL
b)
y | z
--
