May 25, 2012 at 1:03 am
lbrigham (5/24/2012)
Add me to this list too. I answered OR having higher precedent than AND because it doesn't matter what the evaluation of one side of the OR is if the other side evaluates true therefore the OR is of a higher "precedent", but I didn't take into account how Microsoft defines "precedent". Oh well.
It would be enormously difficult to write a parser that would change the precedence according to the command being evaluated. For example, if you had the following construct:
A AND B OR C AND D
In this case you *do* have to evaluate at least one and possibly both of the AND conditions before you can determine what the result of the OR is, but how is the parser supposed to realise that? It makes more sense to both computer and human to always have the same order of precedence for these operators, rather than trying to best guess which way to evaluate things depending on the command.
May 25, 2012 at 9:31 am
Hence the invention of parenthesis... 🙂
May 25, 2012 at 12:01 pm
lbrigham (5/24/2012)
Add me to this list too. I answered OR having higher precedent than AND because it doesn't matter what the evaluation of one side of the OR is if the other side evaluates true therefore the OR is of a higher "precedent", but I didn't take into account how Microsoft defines "precedent". Oh well.
Well, reading glasses (so that you can distinguish "precedence" from "precedent") and a decent English dictionary (so that you can discover that Microsoft assigns exactly the same meaning to "precedence" as do English speakers in general) would probably help.
I suppose that's just a less polite way of saying what Paul Knibbs said most of a coupleof posts back, but your comment realy got my goat and I thought some additional sting was needed.
Tom
May 25, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Right, I misread the question, and probably could've explained myself better as opposed to confusing the definition of precedence and laying blame where it wasn't deserved when it was actually me who misunderstood the real definition. As far as precedence and order of how the evaluation occurs, it makes sense that the ANDs are evaluated first, thus are higher precedence than the ORs, which I understood, and I guess I was thinking which is of higher "importance" or something... I don't know, but I was dwelling on the fact that it doesn't matter for a given OR what side evaluates to TRUE or FALSE if one side is true so in the case of 1 AND 0 OR 1, the OR was of higher precedence because the 1 AND 0 didn't matter. Oh well. It was my mistake and my stupidity. Thanks and sorry about your goat.
May 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (5/25/2012)
lbrigham (5/24/2012)
Add me to this list too. I answered OR having higher precedent than AND because it doesn't matter what the evaluation of one side of the OR is if the other side evaluates true therefore the OR is of a higher "precedent", but I didn't take into account how Microsoft defines "precedent". Oh well.Well, reading glasses (so that you can distinguish "precedence" from "precedent") and a decent English dictionary (so that you can discover that Microsoft assigns exactly the same meaning to "precedence" as do English speakers in general) would probably help.
I suppose that's just a less polite way of saying what Paul Knibbs said most of a coupleof posts back, but your comment realy got my goat and I thought some additional sting was needed.
My dictionary offers
"The condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in rank."
as the first definition. So I would suggest that the sting was absolutely not needed.
May 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm
ronmoses (5/24/2012)
The only reason I had to think about it a while is that I would never combine AND and OR without parentheses, so that fact was a bit dusty in my brain. Yeah, it's something you should know, but it should also be something you don't have to worry about.ron
I have to agree. When I am using both OR and AND I use parens to ensure the proper order of evaluation.
May 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm
It sure was an easy question and a fact anyone using WHERE clauses should know. The difficulty is on understanding the question and reading carefully.
I got it wrong because I misread the answers.:crazy:
August 9, 2012 at 8:58 am
Easy one!
October 8, 2012 at 12:57 am
nice question
+1 😛
_______________________________________________________________
To get quick answer follow this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
January 9, 2013 at 4:21 am
Toreador (5/24/2012)
I can't believe that 21% have currently got it completely wrong, thinking that OR has precedence over AND! Hopefully they're just all misunderstanding what 'precedence' means 😉
I'm one of these 21%.
--
Dineshbabu
Desire to learn new things..
January 9, 2013 at 4:28 am
ronmoses (5/24/2012)
The only reason I had to think about it a while is that I would never combine AND and OR without parentheses, so that fact was a bit dusty in my brain. Yeah, it's something you should know, but it should also be something you don't have to worry about.ron
Yeah me too.. If i'm using OR in WHERE clause and if it has more than one filter condition i will do it inside parentheses.
So i know how AND & OR will work.. I never bothered abt precedence..
--
Dineshbabu
Desire to learn new things..
Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply