On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:13, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Ian Burrell wrote:
>
> > I am doing a query where I need to sort by a column that may be NULL
> > because it is coming from an OUTER JOIN. I noticed a difference between
> > PostgreSQL and other databases about where NULLs show up. It seems that
> > with Postgres, NULLs are sorted after other values. Other databases
> > sort them before.
>
> > Is there any standard on how sorting NULLs work? Is there a way to
If you care, order by their boolean equivelent first:
order by field is null desc, field
DESC puts nulls first, since true > false
> IIRC, they're either considered greater than or less than non-NULL values,
> but the decision is up to the implementation.
>
> > change Postgres's behavior? Is there a way to replace the NULLs with
> > empty strings?
>
> Coalesce should work.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
