Boolean Values 0,1?

Could someone please confirm that in SQL 2000 0,1 are used to refer to
Boolean values as oppose to 0,-1 in Access.
Thank you.
There is no boolean datatype in SQL Server.
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecXFRV9UEHA.1164@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Could someone please confirm that in SQL 2000 0,1 are used to refer to
> Boolean values as oppose to 0,-1 in Access.
> Thank you.
>
|||Although there is a BIT data type that has a value 0, 1, or NULL.
----
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23GFMAc9UEHA.2840@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> There is no boolean datatype in SQL Server.
> "Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ecXFRV9UEHA.1164@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
news:ORxEyf9UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Although there is a BIT data type that has a value 0, 1, or NULL.
True, but that's not a boolean (although it would be closer to a boolean
if you set the column to NOT NULL); I would expect, were there a boolean
datatype, the ability to do this:
SELECT (ColA = ColB) AS ColAEqualsColB
FROM MyTable
As well as other things like a UDF returning TRUE/FALSE (rather than having
to evaluate whether it returns 1 or 0), etc...
|||Thank you having 0/1 answers my q. :-)
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23WdVqx9UEHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:ORxEyf9UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> True, but that's not a boolean (although it would be closer to a
boolean
> if you set the column to NOT NULL); I would expect, were there a boolean
> datatype, the ability to do this:
> SELECT (ColA = ColB) AS ColAEqualsColB
> FROM MyTable
> As well as other things like a UDF returning TRUE/FALSE (rather than
having
> to evaluate whether it returns 1 or 0), etc...
>
|||"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u%23B4U2%23UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you having 0/1 answers my q. :-)
For what it's worth, most shops I've seen don't use the BIT datatype at
all. They instead use CHAR(1) with 'T' and 'F' (and a CHECK constraint to
enforce one or the other). I'm not sure if I believe it's better or worse,
but a lot of the 'experts' seem to think it is better than using BIT. The
upside is that you can index the CHAR(1), if it's highly selective (e.g. if
a very low percentage of the rows happen to be either true or false). BIT
cannot be indexed.
|||Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
instead of Bit (other than indexing).
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eCLb%23qGVEHA.2692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u%23B4U2%23UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> For what it's worth, most shops I've seen don't use the BIT datatype
at
> all. They instead use CHAR(1) with 'T' and 'F' (and a CHECK constraint to
> enforce one or the other). I'm not sure if I believe it's better or
worse,
> but a lot of the 'experts' seem to think it is better than using BIT. The
> upside is that you can index the CHAR(1), if it's highly selective (e.g.
if
> a very low percentage of the rows happen to be either true or false). BIT
> cannot be indexed.
>
|||Depends if you are a Joe Celko fan or not...
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...ver*&lr=&hl=en
... Or I'll save you the effort and sum it up:
"BIT is hardware dependant, not portable, and bad. And you don't and never
will understand SQL as well as I do!"
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OvBs6CIVEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
> Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
> instead of Bit (other than indexing).
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:eCLb%23qGVEHA.2692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> at
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> worse,
The[vbcol=seagreen]
> if
BIT
>
|||hi,
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:OvBs6CIVEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
> Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
> instead of Bit (other than indexing).
if space is an issue, more bit columns can be packed in 2 bytes...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ba-bz_2it0.asp
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.8.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.54.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

Boolean Values 0,1?

Could someone please confirm that in SQL 2000 0,1 are used to refer to
Boolean values as oppose to 0,-1 in Access.
Thank you.There is no boolean datatype in SQL Server.
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecXFRV9UEHA.1164@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Could someone please confirm that in SQL 2000 0,1 are used to refer to
> Boolean values as oppose to 0,-1 in Access.
> Thank you.
>|||Although there is a BIT data type that has a value 0, 1, or NULL.
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23GFMAc9UEHA.2840@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> There is no boolean datatype in SQL Server.
> "Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ecXFRV9UEHA.1164@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||"Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
news:ORxEyf9UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Although there is a BIT data type that has a value 0, 1, or NULL.
True, but that's not a boolean (although it would be closer to a boolean
if you set the column to NOT NULL); I would expect, were there a boolean
datatype, the ability to do this:
SELECT (ColA = ColB) AS ColAEqualsColB
FROM MyTable
As well as other things like a UDF returning TRUE/FALSE (rather than having
to evaluate whether it returns 1 or 0), etc...|||Thank you having 0/1 answers my q. :-)
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23WdVqx9UEHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:ORxEyf9UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> True, but that's not a boolean (although it would be closer to a
boolean
> if you set the column to NOT NULL); I would expect, were there a boolean
> datatype, the ability to do this:
> SELECT (ColA = ColB) AS ColAEqualsColB
> FROM MyTable
> As well as other things like a UDF returning TRUE/FALSE (rather than
having
> to evaluate whether it returns 1 or 0), etc...
>|||"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u%23B4U2%23UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you having 0/1 answers my q. :-)
For what it's worth, most shops I've seen don't use the BIT datatype at
all. They instead use CHAR(1) with 'T' and 'F' (and a CHECK constraint to
enforce one or the other). I'm not sure if I believe it's better or worse,
but a lot of the 'experts' seem to think it is better than using BIT. The
upside is that you can index the CHAR(1), if it's highly selective (e.g. if
a very low percentage of the rows happen to be either true or false). BIT
cannot be indexed.|||Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
instead of Bit (other than indexing).
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eCLb%23qGVEHA.2692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u%23B4U2%23UEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> For what it's worth, most shops I've seen don't use the BIT datatype
at
> all. They instead use CHAR(1) with 'T' and 'F' (and a CHECK constraint to
> enforce one or the other). I'm not sure if I believe it's better or
worse,
> but a lot of the 'experts' seem to think it is better than using BIT. The
> upside is that you can index the CHAR(1), if it's highly selective (e.g.
if
> a very low percentage of the rows happen to be either true or false). BIT
> cannot be indexed.
>|||Depends if you are a Joe Celko fan or not...
qlserver*&lr=&hl=en" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?as_...rver*&lr=&hl=en
... Or I'll save you the effort and sum it up:
"BIT is hardware dependant, not portable, and bad. And you don't and never
will understand SQL as well as I do!"
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OvBs6CIVEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
> Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
> instead of Bit (other than indexing).
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:eCLb%23qGVEHA.2692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> at
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> worse,
The[vbcol=seagreen]
> if
BIT[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||hi,
"Dragon" <NoSpam_Baadil@.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:OvBs6CIVEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Strange as it might, most DBs I have come across used bit type for their
> Boolean fields. I wonder if there are any other benefits to using Char(1)
> instead of Bit (other than indexing).
if space is an issue, more bit columns can be packed in 2 bytes...
2it0.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
2it0.asp
--
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.8.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.54.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to replysql