> From my point of view, NULL is neither bigger, nor smaller, you can't
> compare it with a number.
> So it just comes at the end if you sort at all.
Well, I know you can't compare null in, for example, WHERE clause. But if
we want to sort data in some way, I would like Postgres to behave in any,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have a TODO item:
> * Make NULL's come out at the beginning or end depending on the
> ORDER BY direction
The tricky part of this is to know which direction you are talking
about, when all you've been given is an operator that might hav
> >From my point of view, NULL is neither bigger, nor smaller, you can't
> compare it with a number.
>
> So it just comes at the end if you sort at all.
>
> (Perhaps you need to take a think about what NULL means in your data. Should
> NULL sort as if it's 0?, +infinity?, -infinity? if so why?
y?)
regards,
Piers Scannell
System Architect, GlobeCast France Telecom
Tel: +44 1707 667 228 Fax: +44 1707 667 206
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcin Zukowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 April 2001 16:30
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
I found an example when postgres while executing the same query uses null
values as sometimes bigger than everything and sometimes smaller.
And I think it's BAD.
Check this out:
---
DROP TABLE NUTKI ;
CREATE TABLE NUTKI (
ID INT
