Q:What is the difference between count(1) and count(*) in a sql query
eg.
select count(1) from emp;
and
select count(*) from emp;

A:nothing, they are the same, incur the same amount of work -- do the same thing, take the
same amount of resources.

You can see this via:

ops$tkyte@ORA817.US.ORACLE.COM> alter session set sql_trace=true;

Session altered.

ops$tkyte@ORA817.US.ORACLE.COM> select count(*) from all_objects;

COUNT(*)
----------
27044

ops$tkyte@ORA817.US.ORACLE.COM> select count(1) from all_objects
2 /

COUNT(1)
----------
27044

and the tkprof will show:

select count(*)
from
all_objects

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 2 5.56 5.56 0 234998 4 1
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 4 5.58 5.58 0 234998 4 1

select count(1)
from
all_objects

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 2 5.46 5.47 0 234998 4 1
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 4 5.48 5.49 0 234998 4 1

Same number of blocks read/written/processed, same cpu times (basically) same elapsed
times (basically).

they are identical.

Anyone who thinks different (and I know you are out there) will have to post a test case
like the above or some scientific proof otherwise to be taken seriously....

And just before anyone jumps on the "count(primary key) is better" bandwagon, they should take a
look at the example on
http://www.oracledba.co.uk/tips/count_speed.htm
which shows (as Tom points out) that they all work the same nowadays...

Hi, tom:

Here is my test result, it show count(*) is much fast than count(1).

In other condition ( for example, a query with join), sometime i can find count(1) is fast than
count(*), but i can't find the sample at present. When i find one, i will send to you.

SVRMGR> connect scott/tiger
Connected.
SVRMGR>
SVRMGR> drop sequence seq_r1000;
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> drop table r1000;
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> create sequence seq_r1000;
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> create table r1000 (id number);
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> insert into r1000 select seq2.nextval from all_objects where rownum<1001
;
1000 rows processed.
SVRMGR> commit;
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> set timing on
Timing ON
SVRMGR> select count(*) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(*)
----------
1000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.00 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 0.43 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 0.43 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(1) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(1)
----------
1000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.00 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 0.70 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 0.70 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(*) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(*)
----------
1000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.00 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 0.41 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 0.41 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(1) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(1)
----------
1000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.01 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 0.69 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 0.70 0.00
SVRMGR>

Followup August 31, 2001 - 7am UTC:

I'll have to guess, since you don't say, that you are using 7.x and before when count(*) and
count(1) were different (and count(1) was slower). In all releases of the databases for the last
4-5 years, they are the same.

My testing on 8.x with this test case:

drop sequence seq_r1000;
drop table r1000;
create sequence seq_r1000;
create table r1000 (id number);
insert into r1000 select seq_r1000.nextval from all_objects where rownum<1001;

analyze table r1000 compute statistics;
select count(*) from r1000, r1000;
select count(1) from r1000, r1000;

alter session set sql_trace=true;

declare
n number;
begin
for i in 1 .. 10
loop
select count(*) into n from r1000, r1000;
select count(1) into n from r1000, r1000;
end loop;
end;
/

shows:

SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM
R1000,R1000

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 10 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 10 12.46 12.53 0 40 80 10
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 21 12.46 12.53 0 40 80 10

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 29 (recursive depth: 1)

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
10 SORT AGGREGATE
10000000 MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN
10010 TABLE ACCESS FULL R1000
10000000 SORT JOIN
10000 TABLE ACCESS FULL R1000

********************************************************************************

SELECT COUNT(1)
FROM
R1000,R1000

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.01 0 0 0 0
Execute 10 0.00 0.01 0 0 0 0
Fetch 10 12.38 12.38 0 40 80 10
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 21 12.38 12.40 0 40 80 10

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 29 (recursive depth: 1)

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
10 SORT AGGREGATE
10000000 MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN
10010 TABLE ACCESS FULL R1000
10000000 SORT JOIN
10000 TABLE ACCESS FULL R1000

they are in effect the same...

TOM WE ALREADY HAVE LOT'S OF DISCUSSION ABOUNT COUNT(*)
ETC.

LET'S JUST NOT WASTE TIME ANYMORE ON THIS TOPIC

I forget to say my database version in last post, it's Oracle 8.1.5 EE on Win NT 4.0.

And I have test it on 8.1.7 just now, the result is:

===========================

C:\>svrmgrl

Oracle Server Manager Release 3.1.7.0.0 - Production

Copyright (c) 1997, 1999, Oracle Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Release 8.1.7.0.0 - Production
With the Partitioning option
JServer Release 8.1.7.0.0 - Production

SVRMGR> connect scott/tiger
Connected.
SVRMGR> insert into r1000 select seq_r1000.nextval from all_objects where rownum<1001;
1000 rows processed.
SVRMGR> commit;
Statement processed.
SVRMGR> set timing on
Timing ON
SVRMGR> select count(*) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(*)
----------
4000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.00 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 1.33 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 1.33 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(1) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(1)
----------
4000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.02 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 2.36 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 2.38 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(*) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(*)
----------
4000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.01 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 1.34 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 1.35 0.00
SVRMGR> select count(1) from r1000, r1000;
COUNT(1)
----------
4000000
1 row selected.
Parse 0.00 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Execute/Fetch 2.33 (Elapsed) 0.00 (CPU)
Total 2.33 0.00
SVRMGR>

============================

If the result is caused by some problem of my environment, what problem is it?

Some extra info:

1. There is no need in a separate "count" function as

select sum(1) from emp

does the job (and could do more;).

2. "count" as an abbreviation for sum(1) doesn't really need an argument, for example

select count(1) from emp

and

select count(2) from emp

return the same data.

In short, "count" having an argument is counterintuitive, at least.

关于count(1) 和 count(*)的更多相关文章

  1. COUNT(1)和COUNT(*)区别

    项目经常用到count(1),但是和count(*)什么区别? 从下面实验结果来看,Count (*)和Count(1)查询结果是一样的,都包括对NULL的统计,而count(列名) 是不包括NULL ...

  2. Count(*)或者Count(1)或者Count([列]) 区别

    在SQL 中Count(*)或者Count(1)或者Count([列])或许是最常用的聚合函数.很多人其实对这三者之间是区分不清的.本文会阐述这三者的作用,关系以及背后的原理. 往常我经常会看到一些所 ...

  3. select count(*)和select count(1)

    一般情况下,Select Count (*)和Select Count(1)两着返回结果是一样的 假如表沒有主键(Primary key), 那么count(1)比count(*)快, 如果有主键的話 ...

  4. Oracle 中count(1) 和count(*) 的区别

    count()与count(*)比较: 如果你的数据表没有主键,那么count()比count(*)快 如果有主键的话,那主键(联合主键)作为count的条件也比count(*)要快 如果你的表只有一 ...

  5. select count(*)和select count(1)的区别

    一般情况下,Select Count (*)和Select Count(1)两着返回结果是一样的 假如表沒有主键(Primary key), 那么count(1)比count(*)快, 如果有主键的話 ...

  6. select count(*)和select count(1)哪个性能高

    select count(*).count(数字).count(字段名)在相同的条件下是没有性能差别的,一般我们在统计行数的时候都会把NULL值统计在内的,所以这样的话,最好就是使用COUNT(*) ...

  7. count(*)、count(val)和count(1)的解释

    一.关于count的一些谣言: 1.count(*)比count(val)更慢!项目组必须用count(val),不准用count(*),谁用扣谁钱! 2.count(*)用不到索引,count(va ...

  8. 【MySQL】技巧 之 count(*)、count(1)、count(col)

    只看结果的话,Select Count(*) 和 Select Count(1) 两着返回结果是一样的. 假如表沒有主键(Primary key), 那么count(1)比count(*)快,如果有主 ...

  9. mysql中的count(primary_key)、count(1)、count(*)的区别

    表结构如下: mysql> show create table user\G; *************************** 1. row ********************** ...

随机推荐

  1. JVM 垃圾回收 Minor gc vs Major gc vs Full gc

    关于垃圾回收机制及比较请参见:http://colobu.com/2015/04/07/minor-gc-vs-major-gc-vs-full-gc/ http://colobu.com/2014/ ...

  2. 使用Mat分析大堆信息

    在定位一线问题时经常碰测试中出现Out Of Memory的问题, 通过jmap查看,发现JVM heap全用满了.有很多工具可以查看JVM堆的信息, 收费的比如JProfiler, YourKit, ...

  3. 关于servlet与jsp&java类传值问题

    为了实现单击左侧导航栏,动态改变右侧(一个jsp文件)的内容,需要改变变量var的值,进而实现改变default部分内容的目的(自己想的方法,因为实在是layman.应该有简便快捷的方法,可我不知道. ...

  4. PHP之自定义会话控制---使用文件处理

    前三篇简单的总结了下会话控制和文件操作,这一篇说说会话控制的自定义处理方式.既然知道了文件的基本读写,而且在会话控制中,也有人提到,session数据可以保存到缓存或数据库中,实际上当然不会是直接利用 ...

  5. VSFTPD无法上传的解决方法

    搭建好FTP之后就没有去测试了,今天去试了一下上传的时候发生错误了,无法上传,提示“553 Could not create file”错误, 上网找了一些资料,发现很多都说是权限和防火墙的问题,但是 ...

  6. 实现网页页面跳转的几种方法(meta标签、js实现、php实现)

    1.meta标签实现 只需在head里加上下面这一句就行了,在当前页面停留0.1秒后跳转到目标页面  代码如下 复制代码 1 <meta http-equiv="refresh&quo ...

  7. IOS基础 Day-1手动内存管理

    辞职回家打算自学IOS开发,就在借个地方记录一下 Day-1      手动内存管理                   主要内容:release  retain必须配对好,不然会占用内存 慢慢积累导 ...

  8. NodeJS安全设计:好吃的草莓味糖果,只给好朋友小红

    上一篇文章中,我们已经建立了一个有缓冲机制的文件服务器,能给客户端响应附件类型的文件,其实,就爱莲(iLinkIT)而言,NodeJS的模块做到这样也就已经可以了,因为使用的场景就是电脑和手机之间,与 ...

  9. jquery实现2级联动

    <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8&quo ...

  10. POJ 2528 Mayor’s posters

    Mayor's posters Time Limit: 1000MS   Memory Limit: 65536K Total Submissions: 37982   Accepted: 11030 ...