A safe array of bytes is expected as an argument
in [ASP]
|
From: Bob Barrows [MVP] on 11 Mar 2008 06:22 Anthony Jones wrote: > Note also that DATALENGTH returns null if the field passed to it as a > parameter is null so you'll need to test that field with IsNull in > VBScript > code. ....or use " ... COALESCE(DATALENGTH(field),0) as fieldlength, ... " in the sql statement. -- Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the "NO SPAM"
From: Dooza on 11 Mar 2008 07:28 Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote: > Anthony Jones wrote: >> Note also that DATALENGTH returns null if the field passed to it as a >> parameter is null so you'll need to test that field with IsNull in >> VBScript >> code. > > ...or use " ... COALESCE(DATALENGTH(field),0) as fieldlength, ... " in the > sql statement. So this basically checks if the datalength is null, and if it is, uses 0 instead, if its not it uses the datalength... I am starting to like Coalesce more and more. In my ASP I would then check for 0 instead of NULL. I am currently testing for null, is there any performance benefits to using the above, or should I stick with what I have working at the moment? Steve
From: Bob Barrows [MVP] on 11 Mar 2008 07:40 Dooza wrote: > Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote: >> Anthony Jones wrote: >>> Note also that DATALENGTH returns null if the field passed to it as >>> a parameter is null so you'll need to test that field with IsNull in >>> VBScript >>> code. >> >> ...or use " ... COALESCE(DATALENGTH(field),0) as fieldlength, ... " >> in the sql statement. > > So this basically checks if the datalength is null, and if it is, > uses 0 instead, if its not it uses the datalength... I am starting to > like Coalesce more and more. In my ASP I would then check for 0 > instead of NULL. ? You should still check for 0 after checking for Null. The field could contain a zero-length string ... > I am currently testing for null, is there any performance benefits to > using the above, or should I stick with what I have working at the > moment? It avoids having to do two checks in the vbscript code. Now all you have to check for is 0. -- Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the "NO SPAM"
From: Dooza on 11 Mar 2008 08:19 Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote: > Dooza wrote: >> Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote: >>> Anthony Jones wrote: >>>> Note also that DATALENGTH returns null if the field passed to it as >>>> a parameter is null so you'll need to test that field with IsNull in >>>> VBScript >>>> code. >>> ...or use " ... COALESCE(DATALENGTH(field),0) as fieldlength, ... " >>> in the sql statement. >> So this basically checks if the datalength is null, and if it is, >> uses 0 instead, if its not it uses the datalength... I am starting to >> like Coalesce more and more. In my ASP I would then check for 0 >> instead of NULL. > > ? > You should still check for 0 after checking for Null. The field could > contain a zero-length string ... > >> I am currently testing for null, is there any performance benefits to >> using the above, or should I stick with what I have working at the >> moment? > It avoids having to do two checks in the vbscript code. Now all you have to > check for is 0. Of course, I should have been checking for empty but not null as well. Your solution is working nicely. Thank you Bob! Steve
From: Dave Anderson on 11 Mar 2008 09:15
"Anthony Jones" wrote: > Note also that DATALENGTH returns null if the field passed > to it as a parameter is null so you'll need to test that > field with IsNull in VBScript code. Only if you care about the difference between a zero-byte image and a null. Otherwise, this type of construction is fine: If RS.Fields("Bytes") > 0 Then ... -- Dave Anderson Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use of this email address implies consent to these terms. |