Re: counting rows

From: Tony Andrews <>
Date: 1 Apr 2006 03:37:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>

Tony Rogerson wrote:
> Number 2 will be best because you are effectively storing the aggregate
> instead of the server having to count the number of rows in the table which
> would require IO.

That is wildly simplistic. Based on that advice, it would be "best" to always store the count, sum, min, max, avg, etc. of everything in its parent table(s). Please tell me you don't!? Received on Sat Apr 01 2006 - 13:37:33 CEST

Original text of this message