|
|
Posted by Tom van Stiphout on 12/05/07 02:33
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:29:35 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote:
I absolutely agree. I was just answering the question.
-Tom.
>kishjeff (kishjjrjj@charter.net) writes:
>> I guess that is the 'key', i.e. the character has to be absolutely not
>> in the data or it has the potential (small but real) to fail, right?
>
>The key is that it is a completely unnecessary kludge, when there exists
>a perfectly normal solution with NOT EXISTS.
>
>Not that this kludge also prevents efficient use of indexes.
>
>There are cases when concatenating stuff can be a useful trick, but this
>is not one of them.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|