Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not against abusing of the db, nor playing dirty tricks, if that fits
> your needs. You're free to design your db the way you like and face
> the cost of a careful design or of later SQL gymnastics. I'm fine,
> as long as you don't ask for syntactic
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Greg Stark wrote:
Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(a = b or (a is null and b is null))
that raises a flag for me. It seems that NULL is used as a special value,
which is not.
Well, as I said, it raised a flag for me too. However, it's not good to be too
dogmatic about
Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (a = b or (a is null and b is null))
>
> that raises a flag for me. It seems that NULL is used as a special value,
> which is not.
Well, as I said, it raised a flag for me too. However, it's not good to be too
dogmatic about things. General rules are
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, David Helgason wrote:
On 27. sep 2004, at 22:08, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Greg Stark wrote on 2004-09-27 08:17:
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:16:52 +0200, David Helgason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> On a similar note, I've f
On 27. sep 2004, at 22:08, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Greg Stark wrote on 2004-09-27 08:17:
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:16:52 +0200, David Helgason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> On a similar note, I've found myself wanting an extended '='
operat
Even simpler: COALESCE( a = b, a IS NULL AND b IS NULL )
-- Dean
Greg Stark wrote on 2004-09-27 08:17:
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:16:52 +0200, David Helgason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On a similar note, I've found myself wanting an extended '=' op
