Timeline for Empty result set when matching NULL?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 21:06 | comment | added | Andriy M | I was merely pondering over possible implications of your suggestion and didn't really have an answer there. At the same time, you seem to have found one, and I'm perfectly happy for you if that's the case. Feel free to use the point I was asking about to expand your conclusions into an answer of your own. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 21:01 | vote | accept | Manngo | ||
| Feb 9, 2017 at 20:59 | comment | added | Manngo |
@AndriyM Not necessarily. I’m not recommending anything of that sort, though a special case could be made for interpreting a literal =NULL that way if it has no other meaning. However, I do see in your comment the seeds of a possible explanation: WHERE A=B may include nulls in either side, which should be omitted. WHERE A=NULL is a specific literal which simply forces the issue. Any chance of turning something like that into an answer?
|
|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 20:58 | history | edited | Andriy M | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed a tag from the title
|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 20:53 | answer | added | Martin Smith | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 20:51 | comment | added | Andriy M |
So if instead of a literal NULL you have a=b where b happens to be null, you want the equality operator to automatically take on the meaning of IS (NULL)?
|
|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 20:41 | history | asked | Manngo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |