Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:07:24 GMT
Message-ID: <MC8of.3095$V7.2091@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:06:18 +0100, Jon Heggland wrote:
>

>>In article <aaepp1l4g1h3ud0imb120471k08g9rdaf0_at_4ax.com>, 
>>hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo says...
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 23:34:03 +0100, Jon Heggland wrote:
>>>
>>>>but nobody knows what it is. It is unknown.
>>>
>>>I would hasard a guess that at least Uncle Vernon knows his age. His
>>>parents, his wife and his children too.
>>
>>Relevance?

>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I object to the choice of words "It is unknown", because in fact Uncle
> Vernon's age IS known. Not to you and me, but it is known to many
> others.

It isn't known to the database so NULL is good enough for me!

If you want to underload more meaning than that, (i.e. it is impossible for someones age to be unknown but that the database is missing that knowable value) do it with NOT NULL and an age of -1 for instance.

BTW Uncle Vernons age is a really bad thing to be storing in a database! Why you ask - because since it was last recorded he has probably had a birthday and if not that then at least one sleep even if it is on the couch after Christmas dinner :-).

Cheers, Frank. Received on Thu Dec 15 2005 - 01:07:24 CST