Re: postgresql vs mysql

[Glen Parker <glenebob@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben wrote:
> What I read was that you have no use for NULLs, and that they're 
> equivilant to zero or an empty string or some other known value. Sorry 
> if I misunderstood that.

Equivalent, yes, because NULL doesn't usually mean UNKNOWN in this 
system, just NOT ENTERED.  I do still have use for NULL in data types 
that don't inherently have a blank value (numerics, dates, etc.)

I can and do solve the problem by simply not using NULL in character 
fields, and by the rather gratuitous use of coalesce() in queries.  The 
problem is, it places a burden on people doing ad hoc queries who, 
because of the type of data they work with, have no reason to understand 
the concept of NULL as it exists in standard SQL.  These aren't computer 
scientists, they are accountants and managers.  The result is queries 
that either return bad data, or that appear much more complex than 
should be required to people who can't see why NULL == zero is NULL.

And as I said, I really don't know what a fully functional solution 
would look like, I just know that it would be useful to a large cross 
section of users.

-Glen