Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by irrational 1445 days ago
And oracle considers null to be equal to empty string. My understanding is oracle was created before the sql standard existed and they don’t want to change because of backwards comparability. I don’t understand why they can’t add a db parameter to allow you to set how nulls are handled.
2 comments
to11mtm 1445 days ago
IDK if you ever saw the HN thread where they talked about oracle and change tests from a few years back, but if I had to guess, the pain just isn't worth the overall cost.

Overall I remember running into this but finding it fairly simple to add a couple specific checks around the condition where it came up in our code.

link
layer8 1445 days ago
They would need to change their storage format to be able to distinguish between NULL and empty string, and probably a lot of in-memory structures and even more code logic as well. It would be hugely expensive to support both.

Oracle introduced VARCHAR2 in the 90s(?) to mean “Oracle semantics” as opposed to VARCHAR which is documented as “may change to standard SQL semantics in a future version”. However I don’t think they’ll ever materialize that distinction.

link