383

Could someone please explain the following behavior in SQL?

SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE MyColumn != NULL (0 Results)
SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE MyColumn <> NULL (0 Results)
SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE MyColumn IS NOT NULL (568 Results)
0

10 Answers 10

426

<> is Standard SQL-92; != is its equivalent. Both evaluate for values, which NULL is not -- NULL is a placeholder to say there is the absence of a value.

Which is why you can only use IS NULL/IS NOT NULL as predicates for such situations.

This behavior is not specific to SQL Server. All standards-compliant SQL dialects work the same way.

Note: To compare if your value is not null, you use IS NOT NULL, while to compare with not null value, you use <> 'YOUR_VALUE'. I can't say if my value equals or not equals to NULL, but I can say if my value is NULL or NOT NULL. I can compare if my value is something other than NULL.

9
  • 4
    Actually, I believe it is <> that is in the 92 spec but most vendors support != and/or it is included in a later spec like 99 or 03.
    – Thomas
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 4:44
  • 2
    @Thomas: Oracle didn't support != until ~9i as I understand, which brought in a lot of ANSI-92 syntax. My belief is MySQL is similar, starting support in 4.x.
    – OMG Ponies
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 4:46
  • That would seem to suggest that != might have been included in a later spec as an alternate to <>. Don't have my hands on new specs so I can't say for sure.
    – Thomas
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 16:14
  • 4
    Is the result of WHERE MyColumn != NULL or WHERE MyColumn = NULL deterministic? Or in other words, is it guaranteed to always return 0 rows, no matter if MyColumn is nullable in the database or not?
    – Slauma
    Commented Dec 7, 2011 at 15:20
  • 43
    It should also be noted that because != only evaluates for values, doing something like WHERE MyColumn != 'somevalue' will not return the NULL records.
    – jsumrall
    Commented Feb 12, 2015 at 15:38
131

NULL has no value, and so cannot be compared using the scalar value operators.

In other words, no value can ever be equal to (or not equal to) NULL because NULL has no value.

Hence, SQL has special IS NULL and IS NOT NULL predicates for dealing with NULL.

6
  • 3
    +1. And, contrary to the OP statement this is not "Microsoft SQL". Trinary logic is defined in the SQL Standard and MS in this point adheres to the standard.
    – TomTom
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 4:23
  • 6
    I wasn't suggesting that this is a Microsoft only behavior. I was simply stating that I observed it on Microsoft SQL Server. Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 4:27
  • 22
    Out of interest, are there any situations where this (expected) behaviour is useful? It just seems to me having 'a' != null NOT returning a value (true/1) is counter intuitive and catches me out from time to time! I'd have thought "some value compared to no value" would always be "not equal", but maybe that's just me?!?
    – DarthPablo
    Commented Jun 23, 2014 at 14:56
  • 2
    I think it's interesting that people describe NULL as 'having no value' . Similar, then, to saying the number 1 'has a value' when it actually is a value. But NULL represents non-value.. Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 20:19
  • 1
    As a manual workaround, you could commonly SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE coalesce(MyColumn, 'x') <> 'x' to assign a constant if it is NULL value, providing you give an appropriate datatype for the sentinel value x (in this case a string/char). This is TSQL syntax but Oracle and other engines have similar features. Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 20:25
30

Note that this behavior is the default (ANSI) behavior.

If you:

 SET ANSI_NULLS OFF

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188048.aspx

You'll get different results.

SET ANSI_NULLS OFF will apparently be going away in the future...

4
  • 8
    +1 ... not soon enough. Now when can I get "duplicate" NULLs in an index? :(
    – user166390
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 5:19
  • You can get duplicate NULLs in a SQL Server index by adding a WHERE clause in a filtered index (e.g. create unique index UK_MyTable on MyTable (Column) where Column is not null): msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280372.aspx Commented May 10, 2014 at 23:14
  • 4
    Note from the docs: When SET ANSI_NULLS is OFF, the Equals (=) and Not Equal To (<>) comparison operators do not follow the ISO standard. A SELECT statement that uses WHERE column_name = NULL returns the rows that have null values in column_name. A SELECT statement that uses WHERE column_name <> NULL returns the rows that have nonnull values in the column. Also, a SELECT statement that uses WHERE column_name <> XYZ_value returns all rows that are not XYZ_value and that are not NULL. IMHO, this last statement seems a little odd in it's exclusion of nulls from the results!
    – DarthPablo
    Commented Jun 23, 2014 at 15:06
  • 6
    Important note from the msdn doc: In a future version of SQL Server [newer than 2014], ANSI_NULLS will always be ON and any applications that explicitly set the option to OFF will generate an error. Avoid using this feature in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use this feature.
    – Otiel
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 8:43
13

We use

SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE ISNULL(MyColumn, ' ') = ' ';

to return all rows where MyColumn is NULL or all rows where MyColumn is an empty string. To many an "end user", the NULL vs. empty string issue is a distinction without a need and point of confusion.

1
  • This is the best workaround, just be careful in the few cases where an empty string vs. null comparison is not meaningless.
    – sisisisi
    Commented Oct 20, 2020 at 14:46
11

In SQL, anything you evaluate / compute with NULL results into UNKNOWN

This is why SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE MyColumn != NULL or SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE MyColumn <> NULL gives you 0 results.

To provide a check for NULL values, isNull function is provided.

Moreover, you can use the IS operator as you used in the third query.

2
  • 3
    "In SQL, anything you evaluate / compute with NULL results into 'NULL'" -- incorrect. The result you mean is UNKNOWN.
    – onedaywhen
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 7:39
  • 1
    @MahendraLiya the isNull function is not provided to check for NULLS, but it "Replaces NULL with the specified replacement value.". You should use IS NULL or IS NOT NULL instead of ISNULL which is a different thing. Commented May 31, 2018 at 15:07
10

The only test for NULL is IS NULL or IS NOT NULL. Testing for equality is nonsensical because by definition one doesn't know what the value is.

Here is a wikipedia article to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)

8

null represents no value or an unknown value. It doesn’t specify why there is no value, which can lead to some ambiguity.

Suppose you run a query like this:

SELECT *
FROM orders
WHERE delivered=ordered;

that is, you are looking for rows where the ordered and delivered dates are the same.

What is to be expected when one or both columns are null?

Because at least one of the dates is unknown, you cannot expect to say that the 2 dates are the same. This is also the case when both dates are unknown: how can they be the same if we don’t even know what they are?

For this reason, any expression treating null as a value must fail. In this case, it will not match. This is also the case if you try the following:

SELECT *
FROM orders
WHERE delivered<>ordered;

Again, how can we say that two values are not the same if we don’t know what they are.

SQL has a specific test for missing values:

IS NULL

Specifically it is not comparing values, but rather it seeks out missing values.

Finally, as regards the != operator, as far as I am aware, it is not actually in any of the standards, but it is very widely supported. It was added to make programmers from some languages feel more at home. Frankly, if a programmer has difficulty remembering what language they’re using, they’re off to a bad start.

3
  • This is the same "nonsensical" "logic" that @Hove is describing in his answer. The truth is that in this context there is no need for that extra paraphernalia; it could be easily assumed that when we are comparing something to a NULL we mean that we are comparing a value to 'having a NULL value', not the value to "the undetermined value that the underlaying NULL is ¿having? but that we don't know", which obviously we are not going to be able to ever know. That would really ease things up.
    – Pere
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 8:57
  • 1
    @Pere I wouldn’t say that it is strictly “nonsensical”, and I’m not sure that writing IS NULL is much more arduous than writing = NULL. I think it would be more consistent if WHERE columnA = columnB has the same interpretation as WHERE columnA = NULL, rather than treat the latter as a special case. Remember that NULL is not a value. In programming languages where it is legitimate to test variable == null it is because null has a different meaning; it doesn’t represent something unknown, but a deliberate resetting of a value. Not so with SQL.
    – Manngo
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 9:06
  • That's why I put it between quotes, @Mangoo ;) (and also "logic"). Don't get mad at me; I was talking about the ANSI "reasoning", not about your explanation. I agree in that there is no overhead between IS NULL AND =NULL in your latest example. But take a look at Hover's last one. I'm tired of experiencing it again and again, having to do loads of ¿unnecessary? extra checking...
    – Pere
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 14:34
6

NULL Cannot be compared to any value using the comparison operators. NULL = NULL is false. Null is not a value. The IS operator is specially designed to handle NULL comparisons.

4
  • 6
    I've always enjoyed confused people when I sometimes use null = null where one might use 1=0 in some ad-hoc query. And if they complain, I change it to null != null :)
    – SWeko
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 7:30
  • 11
    "NULL = NULL is false" That's not so. NULL = NULL evaluates to unknown and not false.
    – nvogel
    Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 8:22
  • @dportas that is so but I meant that in a conditional it will not be evaluated as true. Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 11:17
  • @VincentRamdhanie neither as false; in fact, in postgres it will be evaluated as NULL
    – Pere
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 8:46
2

I would like to suggest this code I made to find if there is a change in a value, i being the new value and d being the old (although the order does not matter). For that matter, a change from value to null or vice versa is a change but from null to null is not (of course, from value to another value is a change but from value to the same it is not).

CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[ufn_equal_with_nulls]
(
    @i sql_variant,
    @d sql_variant
)
RETURNS bit
AS
BEGIN
    DECLARE @in bit = 0, @dn bit = 0
    if @i is null set @in = 1
    if @d is null set @dn = 1

    if @in <> @dn
        return 0

    if @in = 1 and @dn = 1
        return 1

    if @in = 0 and @dn = 0 and @i = @d
        return 1

    return 0

END

To use this function, you can

declare @tmp table (a int, b int)
insert into @tmp values
(1,1),
(1,2),
(1,null),
(null,1),
(null,null)

---- in select ----
select *, [dbo].[ufn_equal_with_nulls](a,b) as [=] from @tmp

---- where equal ----
select *,'equal' as [Predicate] from @tmp where  [dbo].[ufn_equal_with_nulls](a,b) = 1

---- where not equal ----
select *,'not equal' as [Predicate] from @tmp where  [dbo].[ufn_equal_with_nulls](a,b) = 0

The results are:

---- in select ----
a   b   =
1   1   1
1   2   0
1   NULL    0
NULL    1   0
NULL    NULL    1

---- where equal ----
1   1   equal
NULL    NULL    equal

---- where not equal ----
1   2   not equal
1   NULL    not equal
NULL    1   not equal

The usage of sql_variant makes it compatible for variety of types

0

NULL is not anything...it is unknown. NULL does not equal anything. That is why you have to use the magic phrase IS NULL instead of = NULL in your SQL queries

You can refer this: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/markc/archive/2009/06/08/60929.aspx

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.