You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is an enhancement request. I want to be able to filter by IS NOT NULL for a column in the DB Browser. I understand the syntax would be "<>NULL". This does not seem to be working. This seems related to #588 but for "IS NOT" instead of "IS".
Oh, I wonder how we (or I) missed that while implementing #588 😉 But I've just implemented the '<>NULL' syntax and it should be working in the next nightly build. Can you download that tomorrow (from here) and give it a try, @renschler? 😄
Just a thought, but <>null isn't valid SQL. I appreciate these are filters and not SQL, but having two conventions in one product seems a bit odd. "type values in here, but they're not valid here". It wouldn't be hard to 'convert' 'is null' into '=NULL', 'is not NULL' to '<>NULL', etc.
On a side point, '=NULL' works, but '=null' doesn't - its case sensitive. Is this by design?
NULLs aren't mentioned in the Wiki at all. I'll amend that tomorrow.
Yeah, the conventions are a bit odd. The idea was to make them as unambiguous as possible, i.e. make sure it's clear what's a special comparison operator and what is not. If we allowed 'is null' as a filter value and treated it like '=NULL' that would mean that it's not possible to filter for an 'is null' string in a text column (except by searching for '=is null' but that's not obvious either and other than 'is null' this is case-sensitive).
So yes, it's all intentional and by design. But you can definitely question the design 😉 Not sure what the best compromise would be. Either way, you're right, it's probably a good idea to document this in the Wiki 😄
Activity
justinclift commentedon Sep 9, 2017
Ahhh yeah. Makes sense, and should be reasonably easy to implement too.
Good thinking @renschler. 😄
Add '<>NULL' filter
MKleusberg commentedon Sep 10, 2017
Oh, I wonder how we (or I) missed that while implementing #588 😉 But I've just implemented the '<>NULL' syntax and it should be working in the next nightly build. Can you download that tomorrow (from here) and give it a try, @renschler? 😄
renschler commentedon Sep 10, 2017
renschler commentedon Sep 11, 2017
I played with the Sept-11 nightly build. Looks good to me 👍
justinclift commentedon Sep 11, 2017
Excellent. Thanks for testing and confirming @renschler. 😄
Well done @MKleusberg. 😁
chrisjlocke commentedon Sep 11, 2017
Just a thought, but <>null isn't valid SQL. I appreciate these are filters and not SQL, but having two conventions in one product seems a bit odd. "type values in here, but they're not valid here". It wouldn't be hard to 'convert' 'is null' into '=NULL', 'is not NULL' to '<>NULL', etc.
On a side point, '=NULL' works, but '=null' doesn't - its case sensitive. Is this by design?
NULLs aren't mentioned in the Wiki at all. I'll amend that tomorrow.
MKleusberg commentedon Sep 12, 2017
Yeah, the conventions are a bit odd. The idea was to make them as unambiguous as possible, i.e. make sure it's clear what's a special comparison operator and what is not. If we allowed 'is null' as a filter value and treated it like '=NULL' that would mean that it's not possible to filter for an 'is null' string in a text column (except by searching for '=is null' but that's not obvious either and other than 'is null' this is case-sensitive).
So yes, it's all intentional and by design. But you can definitely question the design 😉 Not sure what the best compromise would be. Either way, you're right, it's probably a good idea to document this in the Wiki 😄
Add '<>NULL' filter