Re: NULLs
From: stevedtrm <stevedtrm_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <a3716365-7bc4-4a75-ab58-ee7ac957c299_at_n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <a3716365-7bc4-4a75-ab58-ee7ac957c299_at_n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> > If everyone is clear NULLS shouldn't be used, why the debate as to what
> > to do about them ?
>
> Because SQL allows NULL and even promotes the idea that NULL solves some
> problem instead of introducing many.
So everyone is agreed that NULLs shouldn't appear anywhere, and its
just a matter of time before NULLS become a legacy problem and a
relational language supercedes SQL?
Are the two solutions I suggested before the widely accepted as
resolutions to the two problems NULLs were introduced to eradicate?
>Missing information? Then surely there should just be no tuple?
>To indicate that there can be no value? Why not a seperate table with
>a boolean value in the non-key column?
Received on Thu Dec 27 2007 - 10:32:45 CET