April 26, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Is it redundant to write something like this in the where clause............?
where AdmitDateTime is not null
and AdmitDateTime>='2016-04-01'
April 26, 2017 at 12:20 pm
Yes.
Try it yourself.
Leave the WHERE date IS NOT NULL off, and see if you get the same number of rows.
Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/
April 26, 2017 at 12:23 pm
Thanx.
April 26, 2017 at 12:23 pm
NineIron - Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:15 PMIs it redundant to write something like this in the where clause............?where AdmitDateTime is not null
and AdmitDateTime>='2016-04-01'
Yes, it is redundant. Any comparison to NULL will always return NULL.
To compare NULL, you need to use
WHERE AdmitDateTime IS [NOT] NULL
The following queries return exactly the same results.
Even the query plans are the same.
CREATE TABLE #Test (
ID INT IDENTITY(1,1)
, AdmitDateTime DATETIME
);
INSERT INTO #Test (AdmitDateTime)
VALUES ('2016-03-01'), ('2016-04-01'), ('2016-05-01'), (NULL);
SELECT *
FROM #Test
WHERE AdmitDateTime IS NOT NULL
AND AdmitDateTime >= '2016-04-01';
SELECT *
FROM #Test
WHERE AdmitDateTime >= '2016-04-01';
DROP TABLE #Test;
April 27, 2017 at 4:10 am
Thanx.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy