I found out that using where with symbol :my_id => nil and using old school one with ? is different. Could anyone explain me why?
MyTable.where("my_id = ? ", nil).first
SELECT `my_tables`.* FROM `my_tables` WHERE (my_id = NULL ) LIMIT 1
Does not get any data
MyTable.where(:my_id => nil).first
SELECT `my_tables`.* FROM `my_tables` WHERE (`my_tables`.`my_id` IS NULL) LIMIT 1
Get data which has my_id is null.
What is the best practise to use in rails?
I think I didn't make clear about my question. In my rails application, request parameter is nil. Existing coding is MyTable.where(:my_id => params[:id]).first In table, there are lots of records which have my_id is null. Therefore, the first record from table is pick up without realizing. First of all, yes it is the problem with unclean data in table.
To solve this problem. I find two solutions
Solution 1
if params[:id].present?
MyTable.where(:my_id => params[:id]).first
end
Solution 2
MyTable.where("my_id = ? ", nil).first
As you know, if we put (if condition more and more), our application will get slower and it will not be functional programming. When I try solution 2, I get surprised because I am expecting it should give same result.
I suppose it's so called "rails magic" you can pass ranges
becomes
or if you pass a subset
rails will do
more
In rails 4 you can specify the value as null using the new hash syntax.
For DB for NULL the syntax should be
So you can give it as:
The correct SQL syntax is
my_id IS NULL
, so if you change your first snippet to the following it will work:Both syntaxes are perfectly fine. It's up to your own preference. However, if it's a parameter and you don't know whether it will be
nil
or not, you'd better use: