select field from table where field = 'value'
select field from table where field in ('value')
The reason I'm asking is that the second version allow me to use the same syntax for null values, while in the first version I need to change the condition to 'where field is null'...
When you are comparing a field to a null like field_name=NULL you are comparing to a known data type from a field say varchar to not only an unknown value but also an unknown data type as well, that is, for NULL values. When comparison like field_name=NULL again implies therefore a checking of data type for both and thus the two could not be compared even if the value of the field is actually NULL thus it will always result to false. However, using the IS NULL you are only comparing for the value itself without the implied comparison for data type thus it could result either to false or true depending on the actual value of the field.
See reference here regarding the issue of NULL in computer science and here in relation to the similarity to your question.
Now, for the IN clause (i.e. IN(NULL)) I don't know what RDBMS you are using because when I tried it with MS SQL and MySQL it results to nothing.
See MS SQL example and MySQL example.
There is no difference in your example. The second, slightly longer, query is not usually used for a single value, it is usally seen for multiple values, such as
select field from table where field in ('value1', 'value2')
yes there is difference in both this queries. In first statment you can insert only 1 value in where clause "where field = 'value'" but in second statement in where field you can insert many values using IN clause "where field in (value1,value2..)"
Examples:
1) select field from table where field ='value1';
2) select field from table where field in ('value1', 'value2')
To check null values
SELECT field
FROM tbl_name
WHERE
(field IN ('value1', 'value2', 'value3') OR field IS NULL)
Related
i have created a table with 3 columns in which 2 are defined as NOT NULL in SQL, now i created a new column i wanted to insert values to only the new variable, but i'm having an error while using Insert into statement
If you are using MySQL, here is your answer:
Inserting NULL into a column that has been declared NOT NULL. For multiple-row INSERT statements or INSERT INTO ... SELECT statements, the column is set to the implicit default value for the column data type. This is 0 for numeric types, the empty string ('') for string types, and the “zero” value for date and time types. INSERT INTO ... SELECT statements are handled the same way as multiple-row inserts because the server does not examine the result set from the SELECT to see whether it returns a single row. (For a single-row INSERT, no warning occurs when NULL is inserted into a NOT NULL column. Instead, the statement fails with an error.)
The documentation is here: MySQL 5.7 Reference Manual: Insert
As said above, just use ' ' and 0 depending on the type of column you have. I believe it's the same for any other DBMS system anyone could use.
Disregarding that this normally indicates you should rethink your database design, some database engines will let you do this through temporary schema manipulation (removing and afterwards re-adding the 'not null' constraint).
Alternatively you could either define default values for the not null columns, or pass in through the insert command the appropriate "default" values, or select a database mode where either the checks are not enforced (thus allowing nulls) or default values are automatically generated (eg mysql in non strict mode which replaces the nulls with a calculated default value).
The only valid use case I can think of is replicating the situation where a database has rows with nulls in certain fields, and then the schema is changed to make those columns not null. Mysql for instance will allow you to add 'not null' constraints to columns that already have data with nulls in that column.
I think I'm encountering a fairly simple problem in PL/SQL on an Oracle Database(10g) and I'm hoping one of you guys can help me out.
I'm trying to explain this as clear as possible, but it's hard for me.
When I try to compare varchar2 values of 2 different tables to check if I need to create a new record or I can re-use the ID of the existing one, the DB (or I) compares these values in a wrong way. All is fine when both the field contain a value, this results in 'a' = 'a' which it understands. But when both fields are NULL (or '' which Oracle will turn into NULL) it can not compare the fields.
I found a 'solution' to this problem but I'm certain there is a better way.
rowTable1 ROWTABLE1%ROWTYPE;
iReUsableID INT;
SELECT * INTO rowTable1
FROM TABLE1
WHERE TABLE1ID = 'someID';
SELECT TABLE2ID INTO iReUsableID
FROM TABLE2
WHERE NVL(SOMEFIELDNAME,' ') = NVL(rowTable1.SOMEFIELDNAME,' ');
So NVL changes the null value to ' ' after which it will compare in the right way.
Thanks in advance,
Dennis
You can use LNNVL function (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/functions078.htm) and reverse the condition:
SELECT TABLE2ID INTO iReUsableID
FROM TABLE2
WHERE LNNVL(SOMEFIELDNAME != rowTable1.SOMEFIELDNAME);
Your method is fine, unless one of the values could be a space. The "standard" way of doing the comparison is to explicitly compare to NULL:
WHERE col1 = col2 or col1 is null and col2 is null
In Oracle, comparisons on strings are encumbered by the fact that Oracle treats the empty string as NULL. This is a peculiarity of Oracle and not a problem in other databases.
In Oracle (or any RDBMS I believe), one NULL is not equal to another NULL. Therefore, you need to use the workaround that you have stated if you want to force 2 NULL values to be considered the same. Additionally, you might want to default NULL values to '' (empty) rather than ' ' (space).
From Wikipedia (originally the ISO spec, but I couldn't access it):
Since Null is not a member of any data domain, it is not considered a "value", but rather a marker (or placeholder) indicating the absence of value. Because of this, comparisons with Null can never result in either True or False, but always in a third logical result, Unknown.
As mentioned by Jan Spurny, you can use LNNVL for comparison. However, it would be wrong to say that a comparison is actually being made when both values being compared are NULL.
This is indeed a simple and usable way to compare nulls.
You cannot compare NULLS directly since NULL is not equal NULL.
You must provide your own logic who you would like to compare, what you've done with NVL().
Take in mind, you are treating NULLS as space, so ' ' in one table would be equal to NULL in another table in your case.
There are some other ways (e.g. LNNVL ) but they are not some kind of a "better" way, I think.
Apologies if this has been asked before but I can't seem to find a relevant answer. It looks like it should be rather simple.
I'm looking at a store procedure (in Sql Server 2008) that includes a select statement similar to the following:
SELECT id, name, null revisedDate
FROM MyTable
What does 'null' mean when preceding the column 'revisedDate'? Does this mean make the returned column values null regardless? I thought it might be a way of giving it a default value of null, but then surely if there's no value then it would return null anyway.
It simply means that you are including a hardcoded NULL value in your result set. Further revisedDate is the name given to that column. For every row in the result set, this column will show NULL.
Assuming TSQL..
Im pretty sure that that will just return a column of nulls under the heading revisedDate. It wont bring back values form any column as in SQL syntax this is the equivelent of null as revisedDate
Hth
O
I understand that AS is used to create an alias. Therefore, it makes sense to have one long name aliased as a shorter one. However, I am seeing a SQL query NULL as ColumnName
What does this imply?
SELECT *, NULL as aColumn
Aliasing can be used in a number of ways, not just to shorten a long column name.
In this case, your example means you're returning a column that always contains NULL, and it's alias/column name is aColumn.
Aliasing can also be used when you're using computed values, such as Column1 + Column2 AS Column3.
When unioning or joining datasets using a 'Null AS [ColumnA] is a quick way to make sure create a complete dataset that can then be updated later and a new column does not need to be created in any of the source tables.
In the statement result we have a column that has all NULL values. We can refer to that column using alias.
In your case the query selects all records from table, and each result record has additional column containing only NULL values. If we want to refer to this result set and to additional column in other place in the future, we should use alias.
It means that "aColumn" has only Null values. This column could be updated with actual values later but it's an empty one when selected.
---I'm not sure if you know about SSIS, but this mechanism is useful with SSIS to add variable value to the "empty" column.
When using SELECT you can pass a value to the column directly.
So something like :
SELECT ID, Name, 'None' AS Hobbies, 0 AS NumberOfPets, NULL AS Picture, '' AS Adress
Is valid.
It can be used to format nicely a query output when using UNION/UNION ALL.
Query result can have a new column that has all NULL values. In SQL Server we can do it like this
SELECT *, CAST(NULL AS <data-type>) AS as aColumn
e.g.
SELECT *, CAST(NULL AS BIGINT) AS as aColumn
How about without using the the as
SELECT ID
, Name
, 'None' AS Hobbies
, 0 AS NumberOfPets
, NULL Picture
Usually adding NULL as [Column] name at the end of a select all is used when inserting into another table a calculated column based on the table you have just selected.
UPDATE #TempTable SET aColumn = Column1 + Column2 WHERE ...
Then exporting or saving the results to another table.
imagine there are 50 columns. I dont wan't any row that includes a null value. Are there any tricky way?
SQL 2005 server
Sorry, not really. All 50 columns have to be checked in one form or another.
Column1 IS NOT NULL AND ... AND Column50 IS NOT NULL
Of course, under these conditions why not disallow NULLs in the first place by having NOT NULL in the table definition
If it's SQL Server 2005+ you can do something like:
SELECT fields
FROM MyTable
WHERE stuff
EXCEPT -- This excludes the below results
SELECT fields
FROM MyTable
WHERE (Col1 + Col2 + Col3....) IS NULL
Adding a null to a value results in a null, so the sum of all your columns will be NULL.
This may need to change based on your data types, but adding NULL to either a char/varchar or a number will result in another NULL.
If you are looking at the values not being null, you can do this in the select statement.
SELECT ISNULL(firstname,''), ISNULL(lastname,'') FROM TABLE WHERE SOMETHING=1
This will replace nulls with string blanks. If you want another value use: ISNULL(firstname,'empty') for example. You can use anything where the word empty is.
I prefer this query
select *
from table
where column1>''
and column2>''
and (column3>'' or column3<'')
Allows sql server to use an index seek if the proper index/es exist. you would have to do the syntext for column 3 for any numeric values that could be negative.