Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 5 Dec 2005 18:17:49 -0800
Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2005 17:57:01 -0800, michael@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >OK. There is one fundamental problem with this. Some of those NULLs in
> >those tuples might represent that we know something is empty - so it
> >has to be treated as a known value. All NULLs are not created equal.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> No. If something is known to be empty, it's not stored as NULL. At least
> not in SQL databases (which this thread is about, IIRC).
>
> If a comment is empty, iut's stored as the empty string (''). If a
> container is empty, it's contents is stored as zero gallons (0). Dates
> can't be empty. (Days can be, though - that's stored as an absence of
> rows in the Events table).
>
> Best, Hugo
What type of liquid is stored in an empty mug? Is it "unknown"? No - it
is not an unknown type of liquid. It is no liquid. The value of the
"liquid" column for the row would be empty. It would be NULL.
Super,
Mike.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: Hugo Kornelis
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: JOG
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: x
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- References:
- 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: David Cressey
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: michael
- Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- From: Hugo Kornelis
- 3vl 2vl and NULL
- Prev by Date: Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- Next by Date: Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- Previous by thread: Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- Next by thread: Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|