Computing desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 6

PDF: Searchable

On some PDFs (portable document format) I can perform a text search, highlight and copy text, etc. - surprisingly also if it happens to be a - sometimes even pretty rough - scan of an old newspaper. I hitherto thought, this was a feature of the document reader. Apparently it is not. Could anybody let me in the secret, possibly even tell me, how I can transform, my newspaper scans so I can highlight and copy text etc.. Thanks! Oalexander-En (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs can contain a bunch of different graphical objects; the most important are pictures (in this case scans of newspapers) and text. If you take a photo or scan of a book and simply convert that to PDF you'll get a PDF containing only pictures. If you take a word processor document and convert that to PDF you'll get a PDF containing text. Only in the latter can you search, highlight, select etc. the text, because only the latter contains what PDF considers to be text. But it is possible to have both; if someone runs an optical character recognition program on the former case, it can embed a genuine text layer into the PDF, usually behind the image - so you can't see the text, but it's available for search etc. Personally I've used Readiris Pro for this, but there are many tools that will do the job. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 07:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for your quick reply. I immediately got myself a copy of Readiris. If I select output Image-Text-pdf it puts the text behind, and with the option Text-Image-pdf it quasi replaces the text represented by the image with text. With Portuguese as target language it works pretty dismal, but this of-course is none of your fault. As is, it gives me at least some however hit and miss search function. You deserve my full gratitude for showing me the general way. Thx. once more. Oalexander-En (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to give it as detailed, high-resolution an input image as you can, and experiment with your scanner's contrast and text-mode settings. It does okay with detailed text, but (like all OCR programs) it needs much better resolution than a human to make sense of the text. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're scanning a partially translucent paper like newsprint on a flatbed scanner with a white lid-cover can lead to the reverse text being partially visible in the resulting image. This may confuse the OCR program (which often does a contrast-enhance operation on its input, and thus might see this reverse-text as being its objective too). In that case try scanning with the flatbed lid open, or with a sheet of black paper behind the newspaper (so there isn't reflected light travelling back through the paper, carrying with it the image of the reverse surface). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOCR can scan PDFs, and its free. The homepage appears to be http://www.paperfile.net/ A user review somewhere listed several free OCRs and said it was the best of them. It has worked very well for me. 2.97.212.124 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FinlayMc: Once more my utter gratitude for trying to be extremely helpful. My major issue here was with a scanned in book pdf-format, which I have downloaded. My hope there was, that I can search and copy text as I can with some newspapers that are scanned in and are available online (Italy's La Stampa comes to mind). Here my current experience seems to be, that Readiris is not tracking back hard enough to the lexicon that shipped with it. As I now, courtesy of yourself, know the working principle, I simply check out if some other programme wants to do a better job. A phase of trial and error lies in front of me. Else, your 10:36 piece of advice seems also to be quite handy; I had issues there several times and will remember your hint for next time. For now, I will race a few programs through the task, and let you know how I fared. PS: Readiris has a pretty slick interface, which I like, but it grabbed immediately the pdf-file-association without asking - I did nor really like that). Cheers for now. 58.164.53.172 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAM card compatibility (DDR3-1333 instead of DDR3-1066. Will it work?)

Resolved

On a Acer laptop the specifications stated that maximum possible RAM is 8GB. (Currently it has got only 4GB installed). I am thinking of expanding the RAM and It would be nice to at the same time speed it up a little, but
I believe that I have read, somewhere, that not all laptops are able to overclock RAM.
The Laptop has 64bit Windows7, Mobile Intel HM55 Express chipset, Intel Core i5 processor and 2 memory card sockets currently holding a 2GB DDR3-1066 (PC3-8500) each.
My questions are: If this laptop should happen to be unable to overclock then what would happen when I stick in two 4GB DDR3-1333 (PC3-10600) instead of the slower originals?
Will the DDR3-1333 behave just as if it were a DDR3-1066 as long as the laptop does not demand any higher speed?
Or will the RAM cards insist on running at higher speed than the laptop can cope with?
Or may this new setup behave inappropriately in some other way?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DDR3-1333 should work in your computer. Typically, RAM rated at a higher clock speed will simply run at the fastest speed both they and the system can support. If the computer only supports up to 1066 (which is likely, if that's what it came installed with), then DDR3-1333 RAM will run at 1066 speeds. See this page about memory upgrades. As an example, I recently upgraded RAM on my old (circa 2004) computer. The computer supports up to 533 MHz DDR2 memory. Even the cheapest DDR2 memory on the market today is at least rated up to 667 MHz. This memory works just fine in my computer, running at 533 MHz. The RAM isn't running as fast as it could be running, but rather as fast as the system can run it. Buddy431 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to re-open a Firefox window in a full window?

Sometimes when using a website, and I want to print the page for example, I get a firefox window which is lacking the usual menu choices at the top. How can I re-open windows like these in a full Firefox window that has all the menu options? I have not been able to find an add-on - but perhaps I've missed one. Is there a combination of keys that will do this? I have WinXP. Thanks 2.97.212.124 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the "print me" window that a website has popped up has the "menubar=0" property passed to its window.open method (documented here). According to that page "Mozilla and Firefox users can force new windows to always render the menubar by setting dom.disable_window_open_feature.menubar to true in about:config" -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done that. I assume it has the same effect as altering the "user.js file" that your link mentions? Is there a beginners guide to tweaking the about:config, or even a GUI? Thanks. Edit: "gui:config" is such an add-on. 2.97.212.124 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Gui:config only offers a few of the options so is not very useful, and I've uninstalled it. 92.24.128.171 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_:_FAQs_:_About:config_Entries ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WinZip WinDows

Resolved

Is it possible to prevent WinZip from opening the target folder in a new window after unzipping a file? For the way I work, this is more of a hindrance than it is a convenience, and I would like to stop it from happening, but I can't find any settings anywhere that may relate to it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What version of Winzip? What version of Windows? How do you use Winzip - as a standalone app or integrated into windows explorer or ...? -- SGBailey (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Sorry, I'm using WinZip 15.0 on Vista HP SP2. I use WinZip both as a standalone app (as in, I click zipped files and it opens) and as an integrated feature in Windows Explorer (as in I can right click a zipped file and open it in WinZip (or 7zip, or WinRAR, if I want to). Whether it's standalone or integrated makes no difference to target folders being opened after unzipping, however. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have 7-zip, why use winzip? ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say I have two cars, and I have a problem with one car. Does that mean I should just use the other one? Seriously, an answer to my question would be very much appreciated. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should definitely sit on your hands and go nowhere. Yes of course you should use the other car, particularly if it is already the better' car. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in answer to your question (yet unrelated to my problem, especially considering the problem was solved yesterday), I can tell you that WinZip does have features which 7zip does not. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I sorted it out. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook 2003 - Multiple Calendars - Intermittently stop syncing with Exchange

I use shared Outlook calendars to schedule work for other employees. Quite often I'll have 10-15 calendars open in a single outlook instance simultaneously.

I've noticed that every few days, calendar events that I enter stop showing up on other people's calendars. Sometimes restarting the outlook client forces the events to "sync", but often I have to restart the PC. The most annoying part is that I don't have any indication that the calendar events aren't being created in the shared calendars(they appear to have been created from the perspective of my client).

I've recently re-installed my Outlook client, but the problem has re-occurred since. NByz (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a template-based, static CMS

I'm trying to help a university department future-proof their website by means of making it editable by some sort of straightforward content management system (CMS). The CMS would need to allow me to define arbitrary templates (e.g. headers and footers that were universal to the whole site), and allow pretty straightforward editing of page content by someone who had a basic understanding of HTML, but was otherwise not a web developer or designer. The organization is quite small: no more than 4 people would ever be using this system, and it is very unlikely they'd be using it at exactly the same time. The site in question is relatively large and a mix of HTML, CSS, Javascript, and, in some pages, some PHP. There are maybe 800 files total.

The problem is, the whole thing more or less has to be static: something that outputs static HTML. The university IT people, in their infinite wisdom, have deemed individual departments too irresponsible to be allocated access to databases or any other such very scary, very high-tech sorts of things. (Only two years ago did they dare migrate from a non-read-only server, if you can believe it. This is, incidentally, one of the top universities in the world I am talking about. This same IT department also believes that FTP and SFTP are the devil, and so all remote access has to be done through WebDAV.) We can run PHP scripts, but that's about it. So that rules out any server-side CMSes — WordPress, joomla, drupal, etc.

I do my development work on a Mac; the administrative assistants in the department use PCs running god knows what version of Windows. So I'd prefer something that was naturally cross-platform, but if a Windows-only solution is the best one, I can definitely run it in VirtualBox when I need to.

I also do most of my work remotely, so it would be ideal if there were some sort of solution that would allow me to easily sync up with whatever the current build is.

It is not necessary that the program be free.

I had looked into Dreamweaver awhile back, and found it wanting from the perspective of the kinds of templates I was talking about (e.g. editable headers and footers that would be "compiled" into a static HTML file at the end of the day). The last time I looked at FrontPage was probably in the late 1990s, so I'm not sure if my initial bad impression was a correct one. All of these tools seem more designed for allowing people to edit the structure of webpages — I'd rather it be more like a web-based CMS, where you can only edit the content.

Any suggestions? Any ideas I have overlooked? (Aside from just hosting the website somewhere remotely, where life is more sane? I'm considering it...) I've underlined the key parts for people who have trouble reading more than a few words in a row. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to run a Wordpress install locally (on a non-public-facing machine you control) and then use a plugin like really-static to emit static HTML files from that. You'd then need some means (ideally a run-and-forget) script to push the static content to the public webserver with a Webdav COPY operation. That seems like a nice solution, as non-technical people seem pretty comfortable with Wordpress, they can preview their changes before pushing them live, and the IT department don't get upset. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. A small change to the scheme you've proposed is to store the WP MySQL database on a different (private, non-crazy) server, and then do what you say (rather than run it off a WAMP), but have the visible pages be the "really-static" ones. (I'm too afraid of things slowing down to just run off a remote MySQL server for the whole site all the time, but for just CMS operations, it would probably be Good Enough™). Hmm. I'll think about this. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea I'm thinking of trying:

1. Run Drupal on my main server (e.g. university.edu/myprogram), connecting to a MySQL database on an external server (e.g. myserver.com)

2. Use some kind of static HTML caching (apparently called a "DMZ" in Drupal?) so that the Drupal outputs raw HTML rather than using database queries when fetching pages

Does that seem like something that might actually work? I'm interested in the HTML caching because I don't trust my university server and my external server to be able to communicate fast enough, and since the pages are entirely static (once generated/updated), it seems totally unnecessary anyway.

I'm leaning towards trying to find a Drupal solution because I think it will be easier for managing the type of site this in that WP (I would have to either have a very confusing set of Pages in WP, or use WP Multisite, plus a boat load of custom templates, which seems like a whole lot of extra complexity). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when Flash games stall ?

They usually don't give any error, they just stop moving. What causes this, and is there any cure ? (I'm on Windows XP SP3.) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I'd say poor programming on Adobe's part. You can get a "debug" version of the Flash plugin if you're really curious. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be poor programming on the Flash game maker's part. Anyone can write infinite loops. Anyone can write infinite loops. Anyone can write infinite loops. 16:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's Adobe's job to keep it from crashing. Anyone can check for infinite loops, too. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

long-term media storage and compatability

I've been copying family videotape to DVDs (about 20 of them) and distributing them to family members. I want to put a copy in long-term storage, probably in a safe-deposit box. I'm wondering how to do it so it will be playable in future decades - both in terms of the media lasting and in terms of them being compatible with future playback. So far I've thought of two main options: (1) a straight DVD copy and (2) copy the DVDs to an external hard drive. Are there other options so that the media will last and will be playable years in the future? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's two things you want: (1) redundancy (multiple copies, which you appear to have accomplished) and (2) a variety of storage types. You seem to be hung up on DVDs. Those are okay (though they're quite expensive, tedious to utilize, and have unpredictable support), but I'd personally go with redundant hard disk copies as well as at least one (encrypted, if you like) remote network storage (likely to never become antiquated). I wouldn't bother with a safe deposit box — even if you only have one physical location to store things, I'd just increase remote locations, it'll be much more convenient. It's probably not relevant, but while government agents, etc. can open your safety deposit box, they tend to be only as informed as everyone else when it comes to ridiculous encryption nobody has yet broken. ¦ ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even good quality blank DVDs aren't expensive these days. DVDs can just be put in a DVD player and watched on TV. I don't trust the remote storage companies to be around in 30 or 40 years. And will the file format be playable then? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the same capacity in hard disks, they're expensive. And no, DVDs can't just be put into a DVD player and watched on TV, there are endless varieties of problems with formats, media, write errors, player incompatibilities, etc.. Video files can be played through a software video player and watched on TV. They don't have to be around in 30 or 40 years, you can always move it. Banks close, too. The only way a popular or open source file format will be unreadable at any point in the future is if humanity suffers immense catastrophe, in which case we probably won't have DVD players, either. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I can put a DVD in a DVD player and watch it on TV. I don't have a way to play an MP4 (or whatever) on the TV. If the bank closes, I'll be able to get my physical stuff back. If an online storage company goes out of business, who knows? But at this point I'm planning to copy them to an external HD too. But will it work in 30 years? Will anything work with USB2? Will anything play that format? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home-made DVDs often have weird incompatibilities with certain players. I think that's what Reisio is getting at. APL (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I've tried them in two entirely different DVD players (different from the recorder) and one computer, and they worked in all. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A compliant DVD-Video disc will play on any "DVD player" (in scare quotes because they are really DVD-Video players). The only problem you will have is incompatibility of older players with DVD±R(W) discs, but all current and future players will support those discs. And there are open-source DVD-Video players. That's about as future-proof as any format can be. -- BenRG (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I already have a safe-deposit box big enough to hold the stuff. If my house is destroyed, I can't be sure that my family members will be able to produce the copy I gave them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if the whole city floods? You'll wish you had that network storage. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about 80 GB of video. Mozy, for instance, charges $10/month to store that much. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muah, okay. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article relating to this, digital obsolescence. It's basic point is that nobody has yet figured out a simple way to store digital data that is likely to be readable over the long term without special resources. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to be absolutely sure it can be salvaged, it might make sense to print it to film in addition to the other storage methods discussed. This would likely be quite expensive, however.

Personally, I'd go with multiple copies of the dvd on different brands of media, and a harddrive. All placed in the safe deposit box or some other fireproof safe. Possibly the dvd's should be sealed in plastic to prevent oxygen from getting to them.

However, that's only my amateur opinion, there are people who make it their lives' work to figure out these sorts of data archiving problems. I can't find any good advice for individuals, though. The Library of Congress's advice on the topic is disappointingly basic. APL (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of it came from film originally! Most of it is from 8mm and super8 film that was transferred to S-VHS 9 years ago. The rest is from videotape (VHS, video8, and Hi8). Now I've transferred most of the videotape to DVD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need absolute assurance on this, but 99%. Also, if the whole town is wiped out, so be it. I want to guard against preventable failures - format changes and media degradation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh how is limited geographical redundancy not a preventable failure? If the network storage isn't an option, consider sending to friend/s or relative/s in more distant locations, encrypted if necessary and offer to do the same for them. BTW, if the content is all in DVD-Video it's going to be MPEG-2, you could easily recompress it with a more efficient format like H264 for minimal quality loss. At a guess you could easily get it down to 15GB. Or even 5GB if you want to be very aggressive. Even if the quality loss is clearly visible, it's a moot point if the alternative is nothing.

As has been stated, hoping you'll just pick something that will be supported in 20 years time is a bad idea. Far better to check a few copies every 5 years or whatever and update to different format as necessary. Too much redundancy in a single location is likely to be fairly pointless. Note that no one is suggesting you only keep it in network storage. There will obviously be no guarantees, but for the network storage company to go out of business and delete all your data and then for your house or bank to be hit by an earthquake a few weeks later destroy the 5 DVDs you have stored there before you've gotten around to replacing the network storage is probably a less likely then for a rather catastrophic earthquake to destroy all 50 DVDs in the same location or for thieves to damage them when breaking in or whatever even if that location is a safe deposit box.

P.S. I'm presuming you actually plan to be around and able to deal with any unexpected contigencies. If you've recently been selected for a top secret mission to Alpha Centauri and are going to be gone for 42 years I apologise.

P.P.S. If you are going to encrypt the content and it matters to more than you, consider how you are going to ensure someone will have the decryption info if you are no more. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I hope you can use data DVDs with the best formats available today. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to encrypt it - that is just one more thing that can go wrong. The password can be lost, software to decript may not exist, etc. As I stated originally, I am making three copies (of the DVDs at this point) for family members, all in different locations. If my house and the bank 5 miles away get wiped out at the same time, I'm going to have bigger things to worry about. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dvdisaster ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly interesting, thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another ¢5: You will probably not have ever issues with file format compatibilities ever, unless you use something highly exotic. So, MPEG will be fine, and there will be programmes and format converters on future computers that can create an environment making it playable in as much as we these days can emulate Windows 3.1, Amiga, etc. environments on our modern computers. On my computer I have file type converters for for MultiMate and Volkswriter documents, Deluxe Paint Images, ARJ Archives, and numerous exotic database formats (most of that stuff has never been heard of by anybody under 50). Your local geek will provide you in 50 years with the necessary converter for approximately a six pack of standard brew (f still legal then), otherwise the equivalent in Tofu). DVDs are probably going the way of the Dodo, as Floppy disks did: they are bulky and have very limited storage of max. about 8 GB. However, they have been used in such large numbers, that it will be somewhat likely that there will be some machinery available to read them way into the future - it might be quite expensive, as relatively big, relatively envolved mechanical laser stuff will have to be built in small numbers. Smart, I personally find, are those USB Memory sticks, which are also going down and down in price. It should remain relatively inexpensive to create a working environment for them, as no mechanics are envolved. USB devices by now are distributed in far bigger numbers than DVD devices. Using them will remain far cheaper than for DVDs anyway. However, check how long those solid state devices are predicted to last - and remember, that the number of read-write operations does not really matter here. With storage on hard-drives you may run into problems with creating a suitable working environment at cheap cost in the future: they may be found obsolete and replaced fully inside the next ten years by either solid state devices, or even something completely different. Also, I would not feel really comfortable with the longevity of mechanical devices, such as current HDs. The most important issue of all, concerning pure logevity, seems to me the way you store the media. Moisture, dust, cockroaches, temperature variations ... I, personally would use USB memory sticks and seal them into vacuum bags and store them somewhere where I expect the least temperature changes without having to rely on air conditioning. Also, I would ensure at least triple redundancy. Further to that, I would have a renewal cycle of about five years, meaning every five years I create a new set based on whatever is current, but not bleeding edge technology on the day. Hope, that these 5¢ were well spent ;). Oalexander-En (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope the formats will be readable, but I have seen so many formats and types of connections come and go. Memory sticks are quite a bit ore expensive than DVDs at present, but triple redundancy is a good idea, as you said. I have the original S-VHS tapes that the DVDs were made from and the original 8mm film that was used to make over half of the S-VHS, but I'm not counting that. At present, I'm planing to have DVDs in multiple places, copies on two different computer hard drives at home, and a small external HD (maybe with DVDs) in the safe deposit box at the bank. I'll probably add solid state memory too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle bug: Empty strings treated as null

Today I ran into an interesting bug at work. The reason it's interesting is because it's a bug in another company's product. One of our customers reported that if they left a field empty on a page, our application gave a cryptic error message. This cryptic error message turned out to be an Oracle error code: ORA-01400: Cannot insert NULL. Our application knew very well the database column it was trying to write to had a NOT NULL constraint, and so took extra care to write an empty string ('') instead of not a string at all (null). It turned out it was Oracle who thought that an empty string was the same thing as not a string at all. What versions of Oracle does this apply to? Has it been fixed in current versions? What does the SQL standard say about this? JIP | Talk 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Null (SQL) says "In an Oracle RDBMS for example NULL and the empty string are considered the same thing". So it's expected behaviour for Oracle. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Stack Overflow discussion talks about why Oracle does this. You're right to think that other SQLs don't work this way, and I think this breaks strict ANSI, but when you're Oracle you are (or think you are) the standard. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle is certainly not the only database to do this. It's a pain in the neck when you need to distinguish between recorded, but empty, and not recorded for a string value though. I think it's absurd. i kan reed (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]