> (Can we talk about NULL next? :P) Seriously though, there is one thing I've been meaning to bring up. I understand why NULLs compare the way they do in queries, and that's fine. But there are times when I need to query what would be described in relational terms as "not known to be equal", and where a <> b or (a is null and b is not null) or (a is not null and b is null) is rather clumsy and verbose (though precise), especially when it needs to be combined with other criteria. So, first, have I missed some way to express that more easily in PG? And if not, is there any reason not to request a new operator? (Perhaps "a nktbe b"? The C guy in me prefers "a != b" but that would be *FAR* too prone to confusion with <>.) -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice
