Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:27:55 GMT
Message-ID: <%wvhf.3314$ea6.2753@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

michael_at_preece.net wrote:
> FrankHamersley wrote:

>>michael_at_preece.net wrote:
>>>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:09:56 GMT, Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>>>Hugo Kornelis wrote:

[..]

>>>
>>>Omitting the row sounds right. Using NULL is certainly wrong. The thing
>>>doesn't exist. Nor does <WhatYouDidLastNight/>. Using NULL for
>>>everything that doesn't exist would take up a considerable amount of
>>>storage space - like the size of the known universe and more.
>>
>>Everything after the 1st sentence of the preceding para itself is worthy
>>of NULL. Nuff said!

>
> Sorry - no. Not enough said by a long chalk. Everything stored on a
> database is a known fact. What does datum/data actually mean? It is
> ridiculous to store the "fact" that we don't know something. Only
> inadequacies in a model can come anywhere near accounting for a need to
> do this.

What's ridiculous is citing a limitation in the number of atoms within the known universe to invalidate a model you prefer not to accept.

<OT>Please humour me - if Pick is so much better please explain why in 30 years it hasn't smashed all competing products to oblivion?

In doing so I suggest you don't rely on the "inadequate funds for marketing" or other circumstance arguments. Surely its superior handling of NULL (as one of the major bones of contention in the common SQL offerings) is so compelling that in the years it has had plenty of opportunity to dominate. To my knowledge it hasn't - at best it appears to be an "also ran".

Why is that? </OT>

Cheers, Frank. Received on Thu Nov 24 2005 - 21:27:55 CST