I have a rough understanding of why = null in SQL and is null are not the same, from questions like this one.
But then, why is
update table
set column = null
a valid SQL statement (at least in Oracle)?
From that answer, I know that null can be seen as somewhat "UNKNOWN" and therefore and sql-statement with where column = null "should" return all rows, because the value of column is no longer an an unknown value. I set it to null explicitly ;)
Where am I wrong/ do not understand?
So, if my question is maybe unclear:
Why is = null valid in the set clause, but not in the where clause of an SQL statement?
SQL doesn't have different graphical signs for assignment and equality operators like languages such as c or java have. In such languages, = is the assignment operator, while == is the equality operator. In SQL, = is used for both cases, and interpreted contextually.
In the where clause, = acts as the equality operator (similar to == in C). I.e., it checks if both operands are equal, and returns true if they are. As you mentioned, null is not a value - it's the lack of a value. Therefore, it cannot be equal to any other value.
In the set clause, = acts as the assignment operator (similar to = in C). I.e., it sets the left operand (a column name) with the value of the right operand. This is a perfectly legal statement - you are declaring that you do not know the value of a certain column.
They completely different operators, even if you write them the same way.
In a where clause, is a comparsion operator
In a set, is an assignment operator
The assigment operator allosw to "clear" the data in the column and set it to the "null value" .
In the set clause, you're assigning the value to an unknown, as defined by NULL. In the where clause, you're querying for an unknown. When you don't know what an unknown is, you can't expect any results for it.
Related
I am currently learning SQL utilizing Codecademy and am curious if there is a difference between using "IS" or "=".
In the current lesson, I wrote this code:
SELECT *
FROM nomnom
WHERE neighborhood IS 'Midtown'
OR neighborhood IS 'Downtown'
OR neighborhood IS 'Chinatown';
Which ran perfectly fine. I always like to look at the answer after to see if there was something I did wrong or could improve on. The answer had this code:
SELECT *
FROM nomnom
WHERE neighborhood = 'Midtown'
OR neighborhood = 'Downtown'
OR neighborhood = 'Chinatown';
Do IS and = function the same?
All that you want to know you can find it here:
The IS and IS NOT operators work like = and != except when one or both
of the operands are NULL. In this case, if both operands are NULL,
then the IS operator evaluates to 1 (true) and the IS NOT operator
evaluates to 0 (false). If one operand is NULL and the other is not,
then the IS operator evaluates to 0 (false) and the IS NOT operator is
1 (true). It is not possible for an IS or IS NOT expression to
evaluate to NULL. Operators IS and IS NOT have the same precedence as
=.
taken from: SQL As Understood By SQLite.
The important part is: ...except when one or both of the operands are NULL... because when using = or != (<>) and 1 (or both) of the operands is NULL then the result is also NULL and this is the difference to IS and IS NOT.
They work the same but "IS" is a keyword in MySQL and is generally used while comparing NULL values. While comparing NULL values "=" does not work.
SELECT * FROM nomnom WHERE neighborhood IS NULL
The above statement would run perfectly fine but
SELECT * FROM nomnom WHERE neighborhood = NULL
would result in an error.
They are the same for these cases, but further down the line you will discover one nifty little value called NULL.
NULL is a pain because... it doesn't exist.
0 = NULL returns FALSE;
Date <> [Column] will not return lines with NULL, only those with a value that is different.
Hell, even NULL = NULL returns false. And NULL <> NULL also returns false. That is why "IS" exists. Because NULL IS NULL will return true.
So as a general rule, use = for values.
Keep "IS" for null.
[Column] IS NULL
or
[Column] IS NOT NULL
And remember to always check if your column is nullable that you need to plan for null values in your WHERE or ON clauses.
I have a query that needs to exclude both Null and Blank Values, but for some reason I can't work out this simple logic in my head.
Currently, my code looks like this:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL **OR** [Value] != '')
However, should my code look like this to exclude both condition:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL **AND** [Value] != '')
For some reason I just can't sort this in my head properly. To me it seems like both would work.
In your question you wrote the following:
have a query that needs to exclude both Null and Blank Values
So you have answered yourself, the AND query is the right query:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL AND [Value] != '')
Here is an extract from the ANSI SQL Draft 2003 that I borrowed from this question:
6.3.3.3 Rule evaluation order
[...]
Where the precedence is not determined by the Formats or by
parentheses, effective evaluation of expressions is generally
performed from left to right. However, it is
implementation-dependent whether expressions are actually evaluated left to right, particularly when operands or operators might
cause conditions to be raised or if the results of the expressions
can be determined without completely evaluating all parts of the
expression.
You don't specify what kind of database system you are using but the concept of short-circuit evaluation which is explained in the previous paragraph applies to all major SQL versions (T-SQL, PL/SQL etc...)
Short-circuit evaluation means that once an expression has been successfully evaluated it will immediately exit the condition and stop evaluating the other expressions, applied to your question:
If value is null you want to exit the condition, that's why it should be the first expression (from left to right) but if it isn't null it should also not be empty, so it has to be NOT NULL and NOT EMPTY.
This case is a bit tricky because you cannot have a non empty string that is also null so the OR condition will also work but you will do an extra evaluation because short-circuit evaluation will never exit in the first expression:
Value is null but we would always need to check that value is also not an empty string (value is null or value is not an empty string).
In this second case, you may get an exception because the expression [Value] != '' may be checked on a null object.
So I think AND is the right answer. Hope it helps.
If the value was numeric and you didn't want either 1 or 2, you would write that condition as
... WHERE value != 1 AND value != 2
An OR would always be true in this case. For instance a value of 1 would return true for the check against 2 - and then the OR-check would return true, as at least one of the conditions evaluated to true.
When yu also want to check against null values, the situation is a bit more complicated. A check against a null value always fails: value != '' is false when value is null. That is why there is a special IS NULL or IS NOT NULL test.
I understand that SQL uses three valued logic but I am having trouble understanding how to use this in practice, especially why TRUE || NULL = True and FALSE && NULL = False instead of evaluating to null.
Here are the three valued truth tables that apply to SQL Server:
I found a couple explanations of three valued logic online but I cannot find any real code examples of this in use. Can someone show me a code example using three valued logic to help me understand this a little better?
An example of TRUE || NULL = True would be
declare #x as int = null;
if 1=1 or #x/1=1
print 'true'
An example of FALSE && NULL = False would be
declare #x as int = null;
if not(1=2 and #x/1=1)
print 'false'
True && NULL is neither True or False. It's just NULL.
Whether that will evaluate as True, False, or an Error in a boolean expression depends on what happens on your system when you evaluate NULL by itself as a boolean. Sql Server will do everything it can to avoid choosing, but when forced you'll pretty much never see a positive (True) result.
Generally speaking from a user standpoint, you don't want a Boolean expression to evaluate to NULL.
Writing SQL typically involves writing queries to explicitly avoid NULL values in Boolean expressions. IMX, developers would consider using three valued logic intentionally would be considered an abuse of three valued logic. A properly written query should handle NULLs and understand them. You don't write them in such a way that they happen to work right when something is NULL. Usually this involves COALESCE() or IS NULL or IS NOT NULL somewhere.
It is, however, vital that you understand the logic, because NULLs exist and are unavoidable for most real-world data.
For example, let's say I'm working on a table of students. The table has First, Middle, and Last name fields. I want to know the list of students that don't have a middle name. Now, some applications will store an empty string, '', and some applications will store a NULL value, and some applications might do both (and some RDBMSs like Oracle treat empty strings as NULLs). If you were unsure, you could write it as:
SELECT *
FROM Student
WHERE MiddleName = ''
OR MiddleName IS NULL;
The other common scenario is when you're OUTER JOINing to another table. Let's say you're comparing the paychecks for teachers. You have a table for Checks, and a table for CheckDetail. You want to know how much teachers pay for Benefits. Your report needs to list all teachers, even if they're contractors who don't pay for benefits because they don't get any:
SELECT Check.Employee_Id,
SUM(CheckDetail.Amount) AS BenefitsDeductions
FROM Check
LEFT JOIN CheckDetail
ON Check.Id = CheckDetail.CheckId
AND CheckDetail.LineItemType = 'Benefits'
GROUP BY Check.Employee_Id;
You run your report, and you notice that your contractor teachers show NULL for BenefitsDeductions. Oops. You need to make sure that shows up as a zero:
SELECT Check.Employee_Id,
COALESCE(SUM(CheckDetail.Amount),0) AS BenefitsDeductions
FROM Check
LEFT JOIN CheckDetail
ON Check.Id = CheckDetail.CheckId
AND CheckDetail.LineItemType = 'Benefits'
GROUP BY Check.Employee_Id;
So you try that, and it works. No NULL values! But... a few days later, your users report that teachers who used to be contractors are showing up with 0s even though they're paying for benefits now. You've got to COALESCE before the SUM to keep those amounts:
SELECT Check.Employee_Id,
SUM(COALESCE(CheckDetail.Amount,0)) AS BenefitsDeductions
FROM Check
LEFT JOIN CheckDetail
ON Check.Id = CheckDetail.CheckId
AND CheckDetail.LineItemType = 'Benefits'
GROUP BY Check.Employee_Id;
Finding these kinds of corner cases and exceptions is what writing SQL is all about.
The code example by user4955163 is a great visualization of this, however I just wanted to step back in to address the first segment of the question:
...especially why TRUE || NULL = True and FALSE && NULL = False instead
of evaluating to null...
TRUE || NULL = True
This is because the or operator will short-circuit if one operand is already known to be true. No matter what the second operand is (even if unknown, ie. "NULL"), it wouldn't make the expression false since we already know the other operand is true. or only needs one operand to be true, to evaluate to true.
FALSE && NULL = False
This is because the and operator will short-circuit if one operand is already known to be false. No matter what the second operand is (even if unknown, ie. "NULL"), it wouldn't make the expression true since we already know the other operand is false. and needs both operands to be true to evaluate to true.
To use a nullable variable you just need to check NULL conditions (using IS NULL) before checking the value.
e.g. IF #a IS NOT NULL AND #a = 1
In SQL , why does 10/NULL evaluate to NULL (or unknown) ? Example :
if((10/NULL) is NULL)
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE("Null.");
However , 1 = NULL being a COMPARISON is considered as FALSE. Shouldn't 10/NULL also be considered as FALSE ?
I am referring to SQL only . Not any DBMS in particular. And it might be a duplicate but I didn't know what keywords to put in search for this query.
Shouldn't 10/NULL also be considered as FALSE?
No, because:
Any arithmetic expression containing a null always evaluates to null. For example, null added to 10 is null. In fact, all operators (except concatenation) return null when given a null operand.
Emphasis mine, taken from the Oracle manual: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e26088/sql_elements005.htm#i59110
And this is required by the SQL standard.
Edit, as the question was for RDBMS in general:
SQL Server
When SET ANSI_NULLS is ON, an operator that has one or two NULL expressions returns UNKNOWN
Link to the the manual:
MySQL
An expression that contains NULL always produces a NULL value unless otherwise indicated in the documentation for a particular function or operator
Link to the manual
DB2
if either operand can be null, the result can be null, and if either is null, the result is the null value
Link to the manual:
PostgreSQL
Unfortunately I could not find such an explicit statement in the PostgreSQL manual, although I sure it behaves the same.
Warning: The "(except concatenation)" is an Oracle only and non-standard exception. (The empty string and NULL are almost identical in Oracle). Concatenating nulls gives null in all other DBMS.
1 = null is not null. It is actually unknown. As well as any other null operation.
The equality predicate 1 = NULL evaluates to NULL. But NULL in a boolean comparison is considered false.
If you do something like NOT( 1 = NULL ), 1 = NULL evaluates to NULL, NOT( NULL ) evaluates to NULL and so the condition as a whole ends up evaluating to false.
Oracle has a section in their documentation on handling NULL values in comparisons and conditional statements-- other databases will handle things in an very similar manner.
10/something means that you are counting how much "something" will be in 10
in this case you're counting how much "nothing" will be in 10 - that's infinity, unknown..
1 = NULL is false because one does not equal nothing
The NULLIF function accepts two parameters. If the first parameter is equal to the second parameter, NULLIF returns Null. Otherwise, the value of the first parameter is returned.
NULLIF(value1, value2)
NVL
The NVL function accepts two parameters. It returns the first non-NULL parameter or NULL if all parameters are NULL.
also check this conditional outcomes:
This "null equals UNKNOWN truth value" proposition introduces an inconsistency into SQL 3VL. One major problem is that it contradicts a basic property of nulls, the property of propagation. Nulls, by definition, propagate through all SQL expressions. The Boolean truth values do not have this property. Consider the following scenarios in SQL:1999, in which two Boolean truth values are combined into a compound predicate. According to the rules of SQL 3VL, and as shown in the 3VL truth table shown earlier in this article, the following statements hold:
( TRUE OR UNKNOWN ) → TRUE
( FALSE AND UNKNOWN ) → FALSE
However, because nulls propagate, treating null as UNKNOWN results in the following logical inconsistencies in SQL 3VL:
( TRUE OR NULL ) → NULL ( = UNKNOWN )
( FALSE AND NULL ) → NULL ( = UNKNOWN )
The SQL:1999 standard does not define how to deal with this inconsistency, and results could vary between implementations. Because of these inconsistencies and lack of support from vendors the SQL Boolean datatype did not gain widespread acceptance. Most SQL DBMS platforms now offer their own platform-specific recommendations for storing Boolean-type data.
Note that in the PostgreSQL implementation of SQL, the null value is used to represent all UNKNOWN results and the following evaluations occur:
( TRUE OR NULL ) → TRUE
( FALSE AND NULL ) → FALSE
( FALSE OR NULL ) IS NULL → TRUE
( TRUE AND NULL ) IS NULL → TRUE
I was reading this article:
Get null == null in SQL
And the consensus is that when trying to test equality between two (nullable) sql columns, the right approach is:
where ((A=B) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NULL))
When A and B are NULL, (A=B) still returns FALSE, since NULL is not equal to NULL. That is why the extra check is required.
What about when testing inequalities? Following from the above discussion, it made me think that to test inequality I would need to do something like:
WHERE ((A <> B) OR (A IS NOT NULL AND B IS NULL) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NOT NULL))
However, I noticed that that is not necessary (at least not on informix 11.5), and I can just do:
where (A<>B)
If A and B are NULL, this returns FALSE. If NULL is not equal to NULL, then shouldn't this return TRUE?
EDIT
These are all good answers, but I think my question was a little vague. Allow me to rephrase:
Given that either A or B can be NULL, is it enough to check their inequality with
where (A<>B)
Or do I need to explicitly check it like this:
WHERE ((A <> B) OR (A IS NOT NULL AND B IS NULL) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NOT NULL))
REFER to this thread for the answer to this question.
Because that behavior follows established ternary logic where NULL is considered an unknown value.
If you think of NULL as unknown, it becomes much more intuitive:
Is unknown a equal to unknown b? There's no way to know, so: unknown.
relational expressions involving NULL actually yield NULL again
edit
here, <> stands for arbitrary binary operator, NULL is the SQL placeholder, and value is any value (NULL is not a value):
NULL <> value -> NULL
NULL <> NULL -> NULL
the logic is: NULL means "no value" or "unknown value", and thus any comparison with any actual value makes no sense.
is X = 42 true, false, or unknown, given that you don't know what value (if any) X holds? SQL says it's unknown. is X = Y true, false, or unknown, given that both are unknown? SQL says the result is unknown. and it says so for any binary relational operation, which is only logical (even if having NULLs in the model is not in the first place).
SQL also provides two unary postfix operators, IS NULL and IS NOT NULL, these return TRUE or FALSE according to their operand.
NULL IS NULL -> TRUE
NULL IS NOT NULL -> FALSE
All comparisons involving null are undefined, and evaluate to false. This idea, which is what prevents null being evaluated as equivalent to null, also prevents null being evaluated as NOT equivalent to null.
The short answer is... NULLs are weird, they don't really behave like you'd expect.
Here's a great paper on how NULLs work in SQL. I think it will help improve your understanding of the topic. I think the sections on handling null values in expressions will be especially useful for you.
http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/05-jul/o45sql.html
The default (ANSI) behaviour of nulls within an expression will result in a null (there are enough other answers with the cases of that).
There are however some edge cases and caveats that I would place when dealing with MS Sql Server that are not being listed.
Nulls within a statement that is grouping values together will be considered equal and be grouped together.
Null values within a statement that is ordering them will be considered equal.
Null values selected within a statement that is using distinct will be considered equal when evaluating the distinct aspect of the query
It is possible in SQL Server to override the expression logic regarding the specific Null = Null test, using the SET ANSI_NULLS OFF, which will then give you equality between null values - this is not a recommended move, but does exist.
SET ANSI_NULLS OFF
select result =
case
when null=null then 'eq'
else 'ne'
end
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
select result =
case
when null=null then 'eq'
else 'ne'
end
Here is a Quick Fix
ISNULL(A,0)=ISNULL(B,0)
0 can be changed to something that can never happen in your data
"Is unknown a equal to unknown b? There's no way to know, so: unknown."
The question was : why does the comparison yield FALSE ?
Given three-valued logic, it would indeed be sensible for the comparison to yield UNKNOWN (not FALSE). But SQL does yield FALSE, and not UNKNOWN.
One of the myriads of perversities in the SQL language.
Furthermore, the following must be taken into account :
If "unkown" is a logical value in ternary logic, then it ought to be the case that an equality comparison between two logical values that both happen to be (the value for) "unknown", then that comparison ought to yield TRUE.
If the logical value is itself unknown, then obviously that cannot be represented by putting the value "unknown" there, because that would imply that the logical value is known (to be "unknown"). That is, a.o., how relational theory proves that implementing 3-valued logic raises the requirement for a 4-valued logic, that a 4 valued logic leads to the need for a 5-valued logic, etc. etc. ad infinitum.