Re: nulls - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | James B. Byrne |
---|---|
Subject | Re: nulls |
Date | |
Msg-id | 34075.216.185.71.24.1236894654.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: nulls (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>) |
Responses |
Re: nulls
|
List | pgsql-general |
On Thu, March 12, 2009 12:00, Richard Huxton wrote: > James B. Byrne wrote: >> The basic issue is episodic duration, expressed as columns named >> dt_effective_from and dt_superseded_after. Both are datetime >> types containing values normalized to utc. > > If it's unknown use null. > >> in some indeterminate future date, which may be never. > > That's not unknown that's "in the future". > > If you have an event that starts '2001-01-01 01:01:01+01' and > ends "null" then you can confidently say "don't know" as to how > long that event is. > >> On the other hand, setting some artificially excessive future >> date seems in its place seems, to me, to have its own problems. > > Which is where you reach for the handy datetime literals as > described below: > select 'infinity'::timestamp without time zone; > select '-infinity'::timestamp without time zone; > Ahh. I did not know about infinity as a value for datetime columns. This I will investigate further. For brevity's sake, and because I was focused on my own situation, I did not give sufficient context for what is happening. This issue relates to taxation. In the regime I must deal with, taxation rates are often set some considerable time before they come into effect. They are also sometimes related to specific commodities for specific times of the year. For example, tomato forcings may be taxed at 5% from 20090101T0500Z until 20090401T0359Z, then at 0% from 20090401T0400Z to ? (until the minister decides to withdraw the preferential rate). Sometime in January we may, in fact we will, know when the preferential rate will come into effect. However, sometimes not even the ministry itself knows when this will be revoked and the regular tax rate reinstated. On the other hand, there are instances when the preferential treatment period is delimited from the outset so that the effective and the superseded date are both known well in advance. The point being is that the necessary database updates can be input well in advance of their being used. Because of these real world constraints I do not see how we could use a Boolean flag to indicate whether a rate is active or not. What rate is in effect is entirely dependent upon the transaction date and that date on occasion may be considerably in the past. So we are forced to determine the effective rate with a conditional (assuming that we use null to mean unset) along the lines of: select c.e_tx_rate from commodity_tax_rates c where c.commodity_class = <commodity_class> and c.date_effective_from <= <transaction_date> and (c.date_superseded_after IS NULL or c.date_superseded_after <= <transaction_date>) Please forgive any syntax errors. This is obviously not a piece of real code, for one thing the selection criteria involves far more than commodity class and transaction_date. It serves but to demonstrate one approach to the problem. I infer that if instead we set the unknown superseded date to infinity (or some arbitrary large date far in the future) then the query is simplified to: ... and c.date_effective_from >= <transaction_date> and c.date_superseded_after <= <transaction_date> Have I understood things aright? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
pgsql-general by date: