Re: Nulls get converted to 0 problem
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nulls get converted to 0 problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0306060840270.19717-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nulls get converted to 0 problem (Jon Earle <je_pgsql@kronos.honk.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Nulls get converted to 0 problem
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Jon Earle wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 terry@ashtonwoodshomes.com wrote: > > > Oracle *incorrectly* interprets blank (empty) strings as NULL. They are NOT > > the same. A string of zero characters is a string nonetheless. A NULL is > > "the absence of value", which equals nothing (theoretically not even another > > NULL). > > If you're testing a value, you're testing to see if there's something in > there or not - what difference does it make if the variable contains 0, "" > or NULL? Every interface I know of in every language (except cold fusion) has a test for null. There IS a difference, and it's not a difference of just semantics, it has real world meaning. Enter a record for me. Enter my cell phone number. It's a text type. If you enter a NULL you are saying I may or may not have a cell phone, you don't know. If you enter '' you are saying that I do NOT have a cell phone. Hey, who has a cell phone we don't have numbers for? select * from table where cell_phone IS NULL; I don't have to make up a boolean to say what I mean when I put in a '' or a NULL. For numbers, a NULL should never be coerced to 0, which is what was happening to Ari due to the older jdbc driver. Since blank numeric and date types aren't allowed there's no confusion issue. But for text there certainly is a difference in meaning.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: