Re: count (1) and count (*)
From: Frank <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:57:03 +0100
Message-ID: <bnpcl4$shv$1_at_news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
>
> There is a myth out there that count(1) is faster than count(*). It isn't
> true. Use count(*).(You can look it up on asktom.oracle.com)
> Jim
>
>
Well, as it is a myth, you might just as well count(1) ;-) As long as you do not expect (or -even worse- explain!) it to be faster
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:57:03 +0100
Message-ID: <bnpcl4$shv$1_at_news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
Jim Kennedy wrote:
> "Geetha" <gelangov_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b40e20a.0310290724.13e86079_at_posting.google.com...
>
>>I searched in the Oracle documents what count (1) meant and I could >>not find an answer. Can some one explain what Oracle does internally >>when use count (1) VS count (*). Thank you very much in advance! We >>use Oracle 9i.
>
> There is a myth out there that count(1) is faster than count(*). It isn't
> true. Use count(*).(You can look it up on asktom.oracle.com)
> Jim
>
>
Well, as it is a myth, you might just as well count(1) ;-) As long as you do not expect (or -even worse- explain!) it to be faster
-- Regards, Frank van BortelReceived on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 22:57:03 CET