Re: any way to speed up count(*)?
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8406e3ab-6364-4f9a-8507-32cfc71a9788_at_13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 25, 8:19 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Powe..._at_hp.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 7:22 pm, m..._at_pixar.com wrote:
>
>
> In you your example why do you have where 1 = 1 ? Kind of unnecessary
> isn't it.
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8406e3ab-6364-4f9a-8507-32cfc71a9788_at_13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 25, 8:19 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Powe..._at_hp.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 7:22 pm, m..._at_pixar.com wrote:
>
>
> In you your example why do you have where 1 = 1 ? Kind of unnecessary
> isn't it.
I have an example pinned up on my cube of an OCI generated code that has 48 1=1 statements in it. It would be even more unnecessary for me to try to get rid of them. :-)
I'm sure there must be more somewhere in this kind of code, that one just happened to catch my eye in EM one day. Doesn't seem to bother the optimizer at all.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. Death of wikipedia, news at 11. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.htmlReceived on Wed Nov 25 2009 - 12:27:50 CST