Mario Weilguni wrote:
>> This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently,
and
>> IMHO in a more correct way.
>>
>> The following query returns NULL in PG:
>> SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
>>
>> But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
>> SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
>>
>> The latter seems
Hi, Martijn,
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> What's being suggested simply violates common sense. Basically:
>>>
>>> if (a = b) then (a||c = b||c)
>>>
>> If a is 'x' and b is 'x' and c is NULL, the above statement doesn't hold
>> in P
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 10:35, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
> > I think a more sensible proposal could be made for some sort of optional
> > "compatibility mode", as has been discussed many times in the past:
> > different NULL handling could theoretically be part of an Oracle
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 14:28 +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:15, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > > The following query returns NULL in PG:
> > > SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
> > >
> > > But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
> > > SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
> > >
> > > The latt
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > What's being suggested simply violates common sense. Basically:
> >
> > if (a = b) then (a||c = b||c)
> >
>
> If a is 'x' and b is 'x' and c is NULL, the above statement doesn't hold
> in PostgreSQL.
Heh, well, c is supposed to be
sendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2006 16:11
> An: Lukas Kahwe Smith
> Cc: Mario Weilguni; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] bug or feature, || -operator and NULLs
>
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >> Nice, but I still prefer nvl.
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 15:57 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:44:05PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > > When in doubt, consult the standard ... Oracle's treatment of NULL is
> > > known to violate the standard, IIRC. Your measure of correctness seems
> > > to
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:44, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2006 13:52 schrieb Andreas Joseph Krogh:
> > This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently, and
> > IMHO in a more correct way.
> >
> > The following query returns NULL in PG:
> > SELECT NULL
Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2006 15:07 schrieb Andreas Joseph Krogh:
> Why do these discussions always end in academic arguments over whats more
> logical then not?
Because that is ultimately the reason why SQL behaves the way it does. I'm
sure we could all come up with a long list of behaviors tha
> The following query returns NULL in PG:
> SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
>
> But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
> SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
>
> The latter seems more logical...
Why would it be more logical ?
NULL means "value not known".
Concatenate "value not known" with 'fisk' -> what's the
even more exciting in this context would be to add user controllable
NULL sorting behaviour. afaik this is in sql:2003.
ORDER BY .. [ NULLS (FIRST|LAST) ] ?
Wait a bit :), I'm waiting for separate 8.2 branch.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neil Conway wrote:
I think a more sensible proposal could be made for some sort of optional
"compatibility mode", as has been discussed many times in the past:
different NULL handling could theoretically be part of an Oracle SQL
dialect.
even more exciting in this context would be to add user
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 15:44 +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> I'm not advocating that NULL should have a string-vaule of anything, just
> that
> the ||-operator shuld treat NULL as "dont bother with it and proceed
> concatenation".
Not only is the current behavior more logical (IMHO) and bac
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 16:15, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> Yes it's hard for me, maybe because I am no native english speaker.
Considering the pure latin origin of the word, that's a funny argument
:-)
BTW, I pronounce it as an Italian would (that would be the closest to
it's origins): "koh-ah-less-ch
ug or feature, || -operator and NULLs
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Mario Weilguni wrote:
>> Nice, but I still prefer nvl. Coalesce is hard to pronounce, and even
>> harder to type.
>
> amen .. coalesce was invented by a sadistic twit (something which
> people have also calle
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Nice, but I still prefer nvl. Coalesce is hard to pronounce, and even
harder to type.
amen .. coalesce was invented by a sadistic twit (something which
people have also called me .. so it goes).
Perhaps people are trying to pronounce it wrongly
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Nice, but I still prefer nvl. Coalesce is hard to pronounce, and even harder to
type.
amen .. coalesce was invented by a sadistic twit (something which people
have also called me .. so it goes).
regards,
Lukas
---(end of broadcast)-
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:44:05PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > When in doubt, consult the standard ... Oracle's treatment of NULL is
> > known to violate the standard, IIRC. Your measure of correctness seems
> > to be "appears to me more logical", but ours is "complies with the
> > stand
Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
When in doubt, consult the standard ... Oracle's treatment of NULL is
known to violate the standard, IIRC. Your measure of correctness seems
to be "appears to me more logical", but ours is "complies with the
standard".
I know PG violates the standard in other pl
or feature, || -operator and NULLs
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:15, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >If you want this behaviour you will have to explicitly handle it with
>
> COALESCE().
>
> >regards,
> >Lukas
>
> True. But there's a point where oracle is really bett
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:15, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >If you want this behaviour you will have to explicitly handle it with
>
> COALESCE().
>
> >regards,
> >Lukas
>
> True. But there's a point where oracle is really better here, they named
> "coalesce" "nvl" => a lot easier to type ;-)
They
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:13, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently, and
> > IMHO in a more correct way.
> >
> > The following query returns NULL in PG:
> > SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
> >
> > But in Oracle, it r
>
>If you want this behaviour you will have to explicitly handle it with
COALESCE().
>
>regards,
>Lukas
True. But there's a point where oracle is really better here, they named
"coalesce" "nvl" => a lot easier to type ;-)
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
> Why do these discussions always end in academic arguments over whats more
> logical then not?
Because you asked the (rhetorical from your POV) question 'isn't this
more logical ?'
> From a *user's* point of view I really would like it to
> treat the NULL operand of || as '', and obviously ma
Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently, and IMHO
in a more correct way.
The following query returns NULL in PG:
SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
The latter seems more logical...
Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> Why do these discussions always end in academic arguments over whats more
> logical then not? From a *user's* point of view I really would like it to
> treat the NULL operand of || as '', and obviously many other (at least
> Oracle) users tend to agree with me on t
Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
If aggregates ignore NULL one could argue that so shuld the ||-operator?
I agree that this behaviour may seem pedantic, but changing this is only
going to lead to a huge wtf? factor. The baviour for NULL in aggregates
is pretty well documented and known. Even MySQ
Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2006 13:52 schrieb Andreas Joseph Krogh:
> This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently, and
> IMHO in a more correct way.
>
> The following query returns NULL in PG:
> SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
>
> But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
> SELECT NULL || 'fis
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
By following your suggestion we would get the following oddity:
SELECT NULL = '', NULL || 'fisk' = '' || 'fisk';
We would return NULL for the first and true for the second. Surely
that's not logical?
The problem is really that Oracle does not differntiate proper
> How many times do you *really* want to get the "not known" answer here
> instead
> of 'fisk'? To put it another way: When will it be *wrong* to return 'fisk'?
All the time. If I would want the answer 'fisk', I would store ''
instead of NULL... your problem is that Oracle treats NULL as '' (emp
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:15, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > > The following query returns NULL in PG:
> > > SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
> > >
> > > But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
> > > SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
> > >
> > > T
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:15, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > The following query returns NULL in PG:
> > SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
> >
> > But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
> > SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
> >
> > The latter seems more logical...
>
> Why would it be more logical ?
How many times do
This has been been discussed before, but Oracle behaves differently, and IMHO
in a more correct way.
The following query returns NULL in PG:
SELECT NULL || 'fisk';
But in Oracle, it returns 'fisk':
SELECT NULL || 'fisk' FROM DUAL;
The latter seems more logical...
--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <[EMA
33 matches
Mail list logo
