On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:13, Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Ian Burrell wrote: > > > I am doing a query where I need to sort by a column that may be NULL > > because it is coming from an OUTER JOIN. I noticed a difference between > > PostgreSQL and other databases about where NULLs show up. It seems that > > with Postgres, NULLs are sorted after other values. Other databases > > sort them before. > > > Is there any standard on how sorting NULLs work? Is there a way to
If you care, order by their boolean equivelent first: order by field is null desc, field DESC puts nulls first, since true > false > IIRC, they're either considered greater than or less than non-NULL values, > but the decision is up to the implementation. > > > change Postgres's behavior? Is there a way to replace the NULLs with > > empty strings? > > Coalesce should work. > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
