Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Why NULL <> NULL ? |
---|---|
Author | Dave Hughes |
Post date | 2006-05-18T19:21:20Z |
On Thu, May 18, 2006 15:47, jasajona wrote:
implements the COALESCE function:
* IBM DB2 (which also uses VALUE as a synonym)
* MS SQL Server (which also has ISNULL, but that only takes two arguments
instead of an arbitrary number)
* Oracle (which also has NVL, again this only takes two arguments instead
of an arbitrary number)
* MySQL
* PostgreSQL
* and, of course, Firebird
Furthermore, from the PostgreSQL documentation:
"This SQL-standard function provides capabilities similar to NVL and
IFNULL, which are used in some other database systems."
Hence, while you might argue that the SQL standard has chosen a silly name
(and I might even be inclined to agree with you to an extent ... it is a
mite unwieldly) I doubt you have cause to complain to the Firebird
developers about it; they're likely trying to follow the standard (or at
least the consensus) and in this case that's no bad thing.
A similar argument can be raised re: your earlier comments on Firebird's
handling of NULL comparisons.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Hughes
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Paul Vinkenoog <paul@...> wrote:[snip]
>> And as others said, use COALESCE.Actually, I think the SQL standard "invented" the name. Consider what else
> Who created this strange name for this function? Since this function
> appeared in FB, every time when I want to use it, I have to look
> somewhere to find how to write it :)
implements the COALESCE function:
* IBM DB2 (which also uses VALUE as a synonym)
* MS SQL Server (which also has ISNULL, but that only takes two arguments
instead of an arbitrary number)
* Oracle (which also has NVL, again this only takes two arguments instead
of an arbitrary number)
* MySQL
* PostgreSQL
* and, of course, Firebird
Furthermore, from the PostgreSQL documentation:
"This SQL-standard function provides capabilities similar to NVL and
IFNULL, which are used in some other database systems."
Hence, while you might argue that the SQL standard has chosen a silly name
(and I might even be inclined to agree with you to an extent ... it is a
mite unwieldly) I doubt you have cause to complain to the Firebird
developers about it; they're likely trying to follow the standard (or at
least the consensus) and in this case that's no bad thing.
A similar argument can be raised re: your earlier comments on Firebird's
handling of NULL comparisons.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Hughes