8

Does anyone know, why Oracle's NVL (and NVL2) function always evaluate the second parameter, even if the first parameter is not NULL?

Simple test:

CREATE FUNCTION nvl_test RETURN NUMBER AS
BEGIN
  dbms_output.put_line('Called');
  RETURN 1;
END nvl_test;

SELECT NVL( 0, nvl_test ) FROM dual

returns 0, but also prints Called.

nvl_test has been called, even though the result is ignored since first parameter is not NULL.

Peter Lang
  • 54,264
  • 27
  • 148
  • 161

4 Answers4

8

It's always been that way, so Oracle has to keep it that way to remain backwards compatible.

Use COALESCE instead to get the short-circuit behaviour.

Jeffrey Kemp
  • 59,135
  • 14
  • 106
  • 158
5

Here is a post where Tom Kyte confirms that decode and case short circuit but not nvl but he doesn't give justification or documentation for why. Just states it to be:

http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:926029357278#14932880517348

So in your case you should use decode or case instead of nvl if an expensive function will be called in your query.

Doug Porter
  • 7,721
  • 4
  • 40
  • 55
3

In general, it would make sense that the second parameter is evaluated before calling the function, because in general that is how functions are called: all arguments to the function are evaluated and the evaluated values are sent to the function.

However, in the case of a very common system function like NVL, I would have thought PL/SQL could optimise, treating the function call as a special case. But perhaps that is more difficult than it sounds (to me), as I'm sure this optimisation would have occurred to the developers of Oracle.

Tony Andrews
  • 129,880
  • 21
  • 220
  • 259
0

They are obviously not short-circuiting, but I can't find any references in Oracle documentation.

Check out this discussion: http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=3478040

Jonas Lincoln
  • 9,567
  • 9
  • 35
  • 49