Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:40:51 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 27, 10:37 am, "Roy Hann" <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat>
> "stevedtrm" <steved..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > 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?
> It depends who answers the question. I am pretty sure that there are very
> few relational theoreticians who will defend the use of nulls today.
> Unfortunately there are very few relational theoreticians.
More importantly there are very few logicians who would ever consider the use of nulls. And certainly very few mathematicians who would consider the use of a null flag in a relation. All this should precede the notion of application to a data model in my book.
What needs encouraging is more use of work that has been developed by great minds over thousands of years, and less throwing of ad-hoc crap into a compiler.Standing on the shoulders of giants/toes of midgets [delete as applicable]...
> On the other
> hand the overwhelming majority of practitioners enthusiastically embrace the
> use of nulls. There is a very large and growing number of practitioners.
> Since your question is about popularity, you can see the answer is obvious
> I am a practitioner myself, and I feel pretty lonely discouraging the use of
> nulls. There are a variety of reasons why they must continue to be used in
> the short-term, mostly to do with the inadequacy of our programming tools.
> Those won't change for two reasons: programmers won't ask for what they
> don't know they're missing, and programmers seem not to want database tools
> very much anyway.
Its amazing how arrogant learning to code can make one. Learn a bit of syntax and all of a sudden the 'I know best, because I'm clearly smart' syndrome emerges. And we all know any old monkey can learn to hack a bit of code together, and it only takes a slightly better trained chimp to produce pretty good software.
> For the last few years I've been trying a different way of discouraging my
> colleagues from using nulls. I've noticed that almost all of the nullable
> attributes introduced into our systems are there to permit multiple fact
> types to be confused in one table. (There seems to be an intuitive desire
> to minimize the number of tables in a database. I don't know whether that's
> a psychological thing or whether it is something to do with reducing the
> amount of code that needs to be written.)
> Anyway, I have been able to show
> that decomposing these kinds of tables so that distinct fact types use
> distinct tables often incidentally produced very striking performance
> improvements too. I have been able to make the point out that these designs
> allow you to exclude nulls, and I have started to encourage them to look for
> that feature during design, as an indicator of future performance. By not
> over-selling the idea, and by starting with demonstrable benefits, I have
> won some sympathy. Once I have some sympathy I can make more complicated
> arguments. The other benefits of eliminating nulls have emerged
> automatically in time.
> Outer joins continue to re-introduce nulls though. I'm not sure what to do
> about them.
Round them up in a corner and pepper-spray them until they melt. Merry Xmas.
Received on Thu Dec 27 2007 - 20:40:51 CET