Re: NULLS and <> : Discrepancies ?

> Could someone explain to me why not eliminating nulls destroys the
> potential results of the query ? In other words, for any X not null, X
> not in (some NULLs) is false.

You already know the answer: comparisons to NULL always evaluate to
false. You may conclude that this exposes a flaw in SQL9x's definition
of three-value logic, but is the result you should expect for a
standards-compliant SQL implementation.
                     - Thomas

(I was going to say "almost always" rather than "always" but I'm not
recalling a counter example and don't have time to look it up. Sorry
about that... ;)