I\'ve just come across this in a WHERE clause:
AND NOT (t.id = @id)
How does this compare with:
AND t.id != @id
Just a little adjustement fors those who come later:
The equality operator generate a unknow value when there is a null and the unknown value is treated a false. Not (unknown) is unknown
In the example below I'll try to say if a couple (a1, b1) is equal to (a2, b2). Note that each columns has 3 values 0, 1 and NULL.
DECLARE @t table (a1 bit, a2 bit, b1 bit, b2 bit)
Insert into @t (a1 , a2, b1, b2)
values( 0 , 0 , 0 , NULL )
select
a1,a2,b1,b2,
case when (
(a1=a2 or (a1 is null and a2 is null))
and (b1=b2 or (b1 is null and b2 is null))
)
then
'Equal'
end,
case when not (
(a1=a2 or (a1 is null and a2 is null))
and (b1=b2 or (b1 is null and b2 is null))
)
then
'not Equal'
end,
case when (
(a1<>a2 or (a1 is null and a2 is not null) or (a1 is not null and a2 is null))
or (b1<>b2 or (b1 is null and b2 is not null) or (b1 is not null and b2 is null))
)
then
'Different'
end
from @t
Note that here we expect results :
but we get another result
There will be no performance hit, both statements are perfectly equal.
HTH
These 3 will get the same exact execution plan
declare @id varchar(40)
select @id = '172-32-1176'
select * from authors
where au_id <> @id
select * from authors
where au_id != @id
select * from authors
where not (au_id = @id)
It will also depend on the selectivity of the index itself of course. I always use au_id <> @id myself
Note that the != operator is not standard SQL. If you want your code to be portable (that is, if you care), use <> instead.