Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Null or empty string — is one better than the other to represent no data in a table column? (I specifically use MySQL, but I’m thinking this is system-independent.) Are there major advantages/disadvantages to using one over the other, or is it simply programmer preference?
I strongly disagree with everyone who says to unconditionally use NULL. Allowing a column to be NULL introduces an additional state that you wouldn’t have if you set the column up as NOT NULL. Do not do this if you don’t need the additional state. That is, if you can’t come up with a difference between the meaning of empty string and the meaning of null, then set the column up as NOT NULL and use empty string to represent empty. Representing the same thing in two different ways is a bad idea.
Most of the people who told you to use NULL also gave an example where NULL would mean something different than empty string. And in those examples, they are right.
Most of the time, however, NULL is a needless extra state that just forces programmers to have to handle more cases. As others have mentioned, Oracle does not allow this extra state to exist because it treats NULL and empty string as the same thing (it is impossible to store an empty string in a column that does not allow null in Oracle).