Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Weird and The Wonderful
  4. Does NULL <> 'string'?

Does NULL <> 'string'?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Weird and The Wonderful
databasehelpquestion
55 Posts 20 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • N Nelek

    OriginalGriff wrote:

    Dali-esque

    Surrealistic? or womenizer? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

    G Offline
    G Offline
    Gary Wheeler
    wrote on last edited by
    #36

    Nelek wrote:

    womenizer?

    My experience is that SQL lacks, er, discrimination in who it molests.

    Software Zen: delete this;

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M Member_5893260

      ...except there's an "or" in there: logically, it shouldn't matter: if it's null, at least one of the conditions is true. I have a feeling that "null=string" evaluates to null, and then "field is null" evaluates to Boolean, then "boolean or null" evaluates to null, which is why it doesn't work. But that's somewhat abstruse. Which server is this: is it SQL Server or MySQL... or perhaps something else?

      Richard DeemingR Offline
      Richard DeemingR Offline
      Richard Deeming
      wrote on last edited by
      #37

      Dan Sutton wrote:

      I have a feeling that "null=string" evaluates to null, and then "field is null" evaluates to Boolean, then "boolean or null" evaluates to null, which is why it doesn't work.

      Pretty much, but it depends on the operator and the boolean value. If it's possible to short-circuit the operator, it doesn't matter if one condition is Null.

      AND | True | False | Null

      True | True | False | Null
      False | False | False | False
      Null | Null | False | Null

      OR | True | False | Null

      True | True | True | True
      False | True | False | Null
      Null | True | Null | Null

      It's sometimes easier to think of Null as "unknown". :)


      "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

      "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

      M 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        But the IS NULL check is made on TableTwo.TableTwoID While string compare is made with TableTwo.StringColumn So I see no incorrect handling, but of course it is not very intuitiv.

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Member_5893260
        wrote on last edited by
        #38

        Yeah - you're right. Hadn't had coffee yet. LOL!

        L 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

          Dan Sutton wrote:

          I have a feeling that "null=string" evaluates to null, and then "field is null" evaluates to Boolean, then "boolean or null" evaluates to null, which is why it doesn't work.

          Pretty much, but it depends on the operator and the boolean value. If it's possible to short-circuit the operator, it doesn't matter if one condition is Null.

          AND | True | False | Null

          True | True | False | Null
          False | False | False | False
          Null | Null | False | Null

          OR | True | False | Null

          True | True | True | True
          False | True | False | Null
          Null | True | Null | Null

          It's sometimes easier to think of Null as "unknown". :)


          "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Member_5893260
          wrote on last edited by
          #39

          I know: I failed to see first time around that the comparisons were made on separate columns. Coffee. It's a mandatory component first thing in the morning. Of course, not having had any, I failed to realise that, too!

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • O obermd

            The SQL standards don't define how NULL should behave. What you found is accurate for one SQL dialect but may not be accurate for another. This is actually one of the biggest challenges when changing RDBMS vendors.

            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard Deeming
            wrote on last edited by
            #40

            obermd wrote:

            The SQL standards don't define how NULL should behave.

            Yes they do. SQL-92 specifically states:

            SQL-92, section 8.2[^]:

            If XV or YV is the null value, then "X <comp op> Y" is un-known.

            That's the standard behaviour with SET ANSI_NULLS ON (the default).


            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M Member_5893260

              Yeah - you're right. Hadn't had coffee yet. LOL!

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #41

              :laugh:

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                It's simple three-valued Boolean logic - what's the problem?! :laugh:

                Chris Maunder wrote:

                IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                Except that's not SARGabale.

                WHERE
                TableTwo.StringColumn Is Null
                Or
                TableTwo.StringColumn != 'value'

                (You can remove TableTwo.TableTwoID Is Null, because if that's true, TableTwo.StringColumn will also be Null.)


                "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Lost User
                wrote on last edited by
                #42

                And avoid "!=" in SQL :laugh:

                Richard DeemingR 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  And avoid "!=" in SQL :laugh:

                  Richard DeemingR Offline
                  Richard DeemingR Offline
                  Richard Deeming
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #43

                  Only if you're anal about standards-compliance. ;P

                  sql - Should I use != or <> for not equal in TSQL? - Stack Overflow[^]:

                  Databases that support both != and <>:

                  • MySQL 5.1
                  • PostgreSQL 8.3
                  • SQLite
                  • Oracle 10g
                  • Microsoft SQL Server 2000/2005/2008/2012/2016
                  • IBM Informix Dynamic Server 10
                  • InterBase/Firebird
                  • Apache Derby 10.6
                  • Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise 11.0

                  Databases that support the ANSI standard operator, exclusively:

                  • IBM DB2 UDB 9.5
                  • Microsoft Access 2010

                  "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                  "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                    Only if you're anal about standards-compliance. ;P

                    sql - Should I use != or <> for not equal in TSQL? - Stack Overflow[^]:

                    Databases that support both != and <>:

                    • MySQL 5.1
                    • PostgreSQL 8.3
                    • SQLite
                    • Oracle 10g
                    • Microsoft SQL Server 2000/2005/2008/2012/2016
                    • IBM Informix Dynamic Server 10
                    • InterBase/Firebird
                    • Apache Derby 10.6
                    • Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise 11.0

                    Databases that support the ANSI standard operator, exclusively:

                    • IBM DB2 UDB 9.5
                    • Microsoft Access 2010

                    "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #44

                    What the hell... Thank you for the info. Unfortunatelly I have to work mostly with interbase (we are on the way to replace it by MSSQL)and with Interbase until now I thought "!=" is not possible. Made just a short test, and yes also IB accpets "!=" :-O :laugh: [Edit] BTW: Have some Problems to seriously translate "if you're anal compliance" :confused: :laugh:

                    Richard DeemingR 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      What the hell... Thank you for the info. Unfortunatelly I have to work mostly with interbase (we are on the way to replace it by MSSQL)and with Interbase until now I thought "!=" is not possible. Made just a short test, and yes also IB accpets "!=" :-O :laugh: [Edit] BTW: Have some Problems to seriously translate "if you're anal compliance" :confused: :laugh:

                      Richard DeemingR Offline
                      Richard DeemingR Offline
                      Richard Deeming
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #45

                      0x01AA wrote:

                      BTW: Have some Problems to seriously translate "if you're anal about compliance"

                      anal - Wiktionary[^] - definition #3: of a person, compulsive and stubborn, obsessed with neatness and accuracy Synonyms: fussy, pernickety, picky


                      "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                      "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                        0x01AA wrote:

                        BTW: Have some Problems to seriously translate "if you're anal about compliance"

                        anal - Wiktionary[^] - definition #3: of a person, compulsive and stubborn, obsessed with neatness and accuracy Synonyms: fussy, pernickety, picky


                        "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #46

                        Thank you for help me learning English. What such a insignifican word like "about" can change everything :laugh: Thank you Bruno

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • C Chris Maunder

                          You'd think so. Except in SQL We had a query:

                          Select count(*)
                          From TableOne

                          which returned, say, 500,000 records. Next we added

                          Select count(*)
                          From TableOne
                          Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
                          Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                          We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'. TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable. The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records. The issue?

                          TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                          This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use

                          IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                          to get the correct result.

                          cheers Chris Maunder

                          H Offline
                          H Offline
                          hpcoder2
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #47

                          Actually, the same sort of thing happens in floating point arithmetic, in pretty much any language under the sun. The values NaN (yes, there's more than one type of NaN) always return false when compared with any other number. So both NaN==x and NaN != x are false. etc., etc. This has bitten me in the arse a number of times, and I work in C++.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • C Chris Maunder

                            You'd think so. Except in SQL We had a query:

                            Select count(*)
                            From TableOne

                            which returned, say, 500,000 records. Next we added

                            Select count(*)
                            From TableOne
                            Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
                            Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                            We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'. TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable. The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records. The issue?

                            TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                            This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use

                            IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                            to get the correct result.

                            cheers Chris Maunder

                            L Offline
                            L Offline
                            Lost User
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #48

                            Chris Maunder wrote:

                            to get the correct result.

                            The other result was also correct, just not the one you wanted. The behaviour is logical. Your last example would be very VB-ish, where a "NULL" value is treated like an empty string. In the database-world, an empty value does not mean an empty string. ..and it is not something recent, is it? :p

                            Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)

                            C 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L Lost User

                              Chris Maunder wrote:

                              to get the correct result.

                              The other result was also correct, just not the one you wanted. The behaviour is logical. Your last example would be very VB-ish, where a "NULL" value is treated like an empty string. In the database-world, an empty value does not mean an empty string. ..and it is not something recent, is it? :p

                              Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)

                              C Offline
                              C Offline
                              Chris Maunder
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #49

                              Eddy Vluggen wrote:

                              The other result was also correct, just not the one you wanted

                              This is exactly why I love programming.

                              cheers Chris Maunder

                              T 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • N Nelek

                                Guys... this is not the soapbox

                                M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

                                T Offline
                                T Offline
                                TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #50

                                It's also not the lounge.

                                #SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • C Chris Maunder

                                  Eddy Vluggen wrote:

                                  The other result was also correct, just not the one you wanted

                                  This is exactly why I love programming.

                                  cheers Chris Maunder

                                  T Offline
                                  T Offline
                                  TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #51

                                  My sarcasm meter just broke.

                                  #SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • L Lost User

                                    Yes, and it is pretty correct. NULL is not defined and can therefore not be compared to a value. Also not for nuallable type in c#.

                                    R Offline
                                    R Offline
                                    Rob Grainger
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #52

                                    Exactly - in Codd's original work (which defined Relational Database Management Systems), this is referred to as null progagation. Interesting, in The Relational Model for Database Management Systems V2, he introduced two null values one indicates the value is unknown and inapplicable (like the null behaviour you described), and the other indicating the value is unknown and applicable (which would give the behaviour Chris was expecting). Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, no-one bothered pursuing any of the good ideas in there.

                                    "If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Chris Maunder

                                      You'd think so. Except in SQL We had a query:

                                      Select count(*)
                                      From TableOne

                                      which returned, say, 500,000 records. Next we added

                                      Select count(*)
                                      From TableOne
                                      Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
                                      Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                      We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'. TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable. The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records. The issue?

                                      TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                      This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use

                                      IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                                      to get the correct result.

                                      cheers Chris Maunder

                                      R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Rob Grainger
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #53

                                      I prefer the idiom...

                                      (TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value') or TableTwo.StringColumn is null

                                      I find it a bit more readable (never really liked the name of the IsNull function).

                                      "If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • C Chris Maunder

                                        You'd think so. Except in SQL We had a query:

                                        Select count(*)
                                        From TableOne

                                        which returned, say, 500,000 records. Next we added

                                        Select count(*)
                                        From TableOne
                                        Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
                                        Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                        We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'. TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable. The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records. The issue?

                                        TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                        This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use

                                        IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                                        to get the correct result.

                                        cheers Chris Maunder

                                        L Offline
                                        L Offline
                                        Lost User
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #54

                                        In the end I can feel with you. I just entered the trap with NULL values _one more again_ :^) :-D SELECT xyz FROM Tbl1 LEFT JOIN Tbl2 ON Tbl2.Tbl1_ID = Tbl1.ID WHERE Tbl1.IntValue <> Tbl2.IntValue Where in both tables NULL Values are allowed for the field IntValue. S*t happens :doh:

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • C Chris Maunder

                                          You'd think so. Except in SQL We had a query:

                                          Select count(*)
                                          From TableOne

                                          which returned, say, 500,000 records. Next we added

                                          Select count(*)
                                          From TableOne
                                          Left Join TableTwo On TableTwo.TableTwoID = TableOne.TableTwoID
                                          Where TableTwo.TableTwoID is null or TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                          We're trying to find the number of records in TableOne which, when joined with TableTwo, either have no corresponding TableTwo row or the corresponding TableTwo row is not 'value'. TableTwo.StringColumn is nullable. The result? Adding the join resulted in 25K records. It should have been over 490K records. The issue?

                                          TableTwo.StringColumn <> 'value'

                                          This comparison returns false if TableTwo.StringColumn is null. So one needs to use

                                          IsNull(TableTwo.StringColumn, '') <> 'value'

                                          to get the correct result.

                                          cheers Chris Maunder

                                          A Offline
                                          A Offline
                                          al3c
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #55

                                          It's either col equals null meaning a field with no value or you've got an epmty string you can use

                                          Select *
                                          From Table
                                          Where (col is null or col = '')

                                          or IsNull method to find epty strngs and null values _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Alec programming[^] expert

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups