Re: fastest way to count number of records

look back in the google archives from a month or so:

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=3cc58577%240%248508%24ed9e5944%40reading.news.pipex.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dcount(*)%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dcomp.databases.oracle.*

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&safe=off&threadm=3c89ec26.10589506%40news.online.de&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcount(*

(if either link wraps, then cut 'n paste together).

hth

Bricklen

bigt wrote:
>
> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_attbi.com> wrote in message news:<nc2P8.211312$352.13763@sccrnsc02>...
> > That's it.
> > Jim
> > "qazmlp" <qazmlp1209_at_rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:db9bbf31.0206160621.3bf080a6_at_posting.google.com...
> > > What is the fastest way to count the number of records in a Table?
> > >
> > > Currently I'm using this:
> > > SQL> select count(*) from TableName;
>
> I have read many conflicting reports on this. Some articles suggest
> that select count(0) from TableName; is faster. The select count(*)
> may need to look at all of the columns first, where as the count(0)
> does not.
Received on Tue Jun 18 2002 - 06:09:33 CEST