From: Claudio Nanni
Date: March 14 2009 12:36pm
Subject: Re: avoiding use of Nulls (was: The <=> operator)
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/216720
Message-Id: <53bcf3a60903140536l4aa6c6efs6dd055bb7898a57b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163662e5c6cc1cf90465137607

--00163662e5c6cc1cf90465137607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi everybody I want to join as well.

>
> 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.

NULL was zero

>
>
>  I'd use -99999.9999, I'd never allow a "i don't know what it is" value
> like Null in my database.
>

NULL is NO INFORMATION ON THIS VALUE, and having no information happens in
real life.
The message I do not have information on this value it is an important
information itself.

The question is: "Will I allow a record to contain a 'non-informative' field
?"

[a] Ok, go ahead.
[b] No, set the field as NOT NULL

If you choose [b] please assume your responsibilities.
Everytime you insert a record, either you have all the information at once
or use your fake,
fantasy value {0,-99999.9999,-1,PIPPO}.
If I read your record about the weather in Amsterdam and I read a
temperature of -99999.9999
I will definitely think your database is unreliable.

Cheers

Claudio

--00163662e5c6cc1cf90465137607--