> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, michael@stripped wrote:
>> Explanation(5): The more you understand how the database is to be used,
>> and the more complexity and thought you put into your database design,
>> less complex it will be to retrieve reliable information out of it.
>> Furthermore, (and this is probably what makes me crazy when Nulls are
>> evolved) after a ten year stretch of software development, where I and a
>> team designed our own databases, I did a nine year stretch of
>> programming, using databases designed by other people, and Nulls in the
>> data made the results unpredictable, and yeah, made me crazy! I had to
>> write nightly processes to resolve inconsistencies in the data, if at
>> least report inconsistencies. You know the old saying "Garbage in =
>> Garbage out", to me Nulls are garbage, and if there is a good reason for
>> nulls to be a part of good clean data then someone please help me
>> understand that.
> I'm in a argumentative mood today too. :-)
> I have a database logging weather data. When a station does not report a
> temperature, it is set to NULL. It would be a very bad idea to set it to 0
> as this would ruin the whole statistics.
> NULL is a perfectly valid information in many cases.
OK! I do understand, thank you.
But hypothetically speaking, what value would you use if you didn't have a
"I don't what this is" value like null?
I ask this because I started programming when NULL was really zero, and
part of the ASCII collating sequence.
I'd use -99999.9999, I'd never allow a "i don't know what it is" value
like Null in my database.