Re: [HACKERS] Subselects and NOTs
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: vadim@sable.krasnoyarsk.su (Vadim B. Mikheev)
Cc: hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1998-02-17T15:59:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Oracle 6, there is NULL into table b: > > SQL> select * from a where x in (select * from b); > > X > ---------- > 2 > > SQL> select * from a where x not in (select * from b); > > no rows selected > > SQL> select * from a where not x in (select * from b); > > no rows selected > > Is 'not X in' the same as 'X not in' ? Currently we have: I am not sure about this, but I believe 'not X in subselect' is evaluated as 'not (x in subselect)' and not as 'X not in subselect'. Am I missing something? There is also some interesting stuff about comparisons: ( 1,2,NULL) = (3, NULL,4) false ( 1,2,NULL) < (3, NULL,4) true ( 1,2,NULL) = (1, NULL,4) unknown ( 1,2,NULL) > (NULL, 2,4) unknown This happens because the comparisons are: left < right is true of and only if there exists some j such that Lj < Rj is true and for all i < j, and Li = Ri is true so it seems it compares these things from left to right, trying to make the comparison. For = and <>, is doesn't matter, but for the <, it does matter. Also they show: select * from test where x <> (select y from test2) When test2 returns no rows, the query returns no rows because the subquery returns a single row of NULL values. Hope this helps. I can give more detail if you want it. > > vac=> select * from a where not x in (select * from b); > x > - > 1 > (1 row) > > : subselect clause is "atomic" and NOT-s are never pushed into it. > > Once again - what standard says ? > > Vadim > > -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us