<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
An outer join where the column in the join is a <b>nullable boolean</b>?
Can you give me an example where doing that is better (easier to
understand during maintenace) than using an integer? I do not go
against all nulls, just <b>boolean </b>nulls.<br>
<br>
Gavin King escribió:
<blockquote
cite="mid:db199550812041109u19e21568h77ed5e65cf5388f5@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So you never use outer joins? Every outer join produces null values.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Francisco Jose Peredo
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:franciscoperedo@tabasco.gob.mx"><franciscoperedo@tabasco.gob.mx></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I try to avoid it in databases, if there are 3 different possible
values, it is better to use a not null Integer column, all my boolean
columns are "not null" always.
Emmanuel Bernard escribió:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Databases use this three-state for decades. It seems to work fine.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Many people believe it does not work fine:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)#Controversy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)#Controversy</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>