Re: count(1) vs. count(*)

Malcolm Dew-Jones wrote:

> Daniel Morgan (damorgan_at_exesolutions.com) wrote:
> : Great. Another myth goes down in flames.
>
> I think this sort of thing was relevent back in around (ooh, maybe) 6.x or
> so. It's not a baseless myth, just wrong now.

All myths and prejudices have some basis in reality. The problem is that they are repeated so often, and by some many 'experts' that they take on a life of their own.

What bothers me is that I am viewed that way ... and it is truly disconcerting when I find out that something I learned way back at the dawn of time, (ooh, maybe) 6.x or so, became invalid along the way and I never found out.

Just this week I have found out that material I received from Oracle Education is not valid. Maybe it was at the time I received it. Maybe it wasn't. But I certainly didn't question its validity at the time. And I find it slightly bothersome that it opens the door to question how many other things repeated at technet, tahiti, in books, lectures, etc. are just not valid.

Take for example this quote I just got off tahiti.oracle.com in the last 30 seconds. According to the experts here in this forum it is just plain wrong: No I'll be cheritable, it is misleading.

"For example, if several disk drives are available to store the database, it might be helpful to store table data in a tablespace on one disk drive, and index data in a tablespace on another disk drive. This way, when users query table information, both disk drives can work simultaneously, retrieving table and index data at the same time."

Source:
http://otn.oracle.com/docs/products/oracle8i/doc_library/817_doc/server.817/a76956/dfiles.htm#423

Daniel Morgan

PS: This comment is not intended to throw open any previous threads. Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 17:41:52 CDT