On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:29:35 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<esquel (AT) sommarskog (DOT) se> wrote:
Quote:
kishjeff (kishjjrjj (AT) charter (DOT) 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.
well NOT EXISTS it is then!
|
thanks Erland! (and everyone) I appreciate all the education.
Jeff