On 4/4/22 09:21, J. Roeleveld wrote:
This was actually the case, I forgot there is 1 NULL-value in that list. Personally, I think NULL should be treated as a seperate value and not lead to strange behaviour.
NULL is strange. Relational databases use ternary, not binary
logic. In the woke vernacular, one could say that Postgres is
non-binary. NULL literally means "no value". It is a part of the
standard, so we have to deal with it, Codd help us. However, based
on my lifelong experience with Oracle, NULL values are bad and are
best avoided. Postgres is more forgiving than Oracle because in
Postgres, the condition "is not null" can be resolved by index. In
Oracle, it can not.
-- Mladen Gogala Database Consultant Tel: (347) 321-1217 https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
