On 14 May, 13:05, subtenante <zzsubtenant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 May 2007 04:58:47 -0700, Lo'oris <loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >hey nice idea. but. i kinda expected NULLs improved performance over
> >values such as 0, don't they?
> >well, having a slightly worst performance is anyway better than having
> >bugs you can't find, isn't it?
> >i'll consider this, thanks
>
> I'm not sure it makes better performance to have NULLs. They add 1 bit
> to every field that can take a NULL value, and they don't make
> searches faster as far as I know.

Quite useful for functions such as COALESCE though.