关于count(1) 和 count(*)
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
- 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 ...
- 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 ...
- 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 ...
- 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 ...
- 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 ...
- 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(*) ...
- 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 ...
- 【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 ...
- 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
- linux云计算集群架构学习笔记:命令查看文件内容
查看文件内容 1.cat 命令 作用:查看文件内容 语法:cat 文件名 2. more 命令 作用:分页查看文件内容 语法:more 文件名 例:more /etc/passwd 按下回车刷新一行 ...
- webservice发布接口
一:编写接口程序,计算功能类,有加减乘除四个方法 /** * */ package com.hlcui.util; /** * @author Administrator 将此类发布为公共接口 */ ...
- Shell学习笔记 - 运算符
一.Declare命令 1. 命令格式 declare [+/-] [选项] 变量名 其中: -: 给变量设定类型属性 +:取消变量的类型属性 2. 参数说明 -i:将变量声明为整型 -a:将变量声明 ...
- JDBC的批量批量插入
本文部分转载于:http://blog.itpub.net/29254281/viewspace-1151785/ http://www.cnblogs.com/chenjianjx/archive/ ...
- hdu 4585 set应用
#include<iostream> #include<algorithm> #include<cstring> #include<cstdio> #i ...
- linux nginx启动 重启 关闭命令
启动操作 nginx -c /usr/local/nginx/conf/nginx.conf -c参数指定了要加载的nginx配置文件路径 停止操作停止操作是通过向nginx进程发送信号来进行的 步骤 ...
- Java I/O第二篇 之 (缓冲流 随机流 数组流 数据流)
1:缓冲流 BufferedReader BufferedWriter 具有较强的读写能力,能单独读写一行数据,能够减少对硬盘的访问次数. /** * 缓冲流 能够增强对问价数据的可读性,减少访问读 ...
- Android之触屏事件
方法一: 新建"MyView"类 package onTouchEvent; import android.content.Context; import android.grap ...
- ios Swift ! and ?
swift ?和!之间区别: Swift 引入的最不一样的可能就是 Optional Value 了.在声明时,我们可以通过在类型后面加一个? 来将变量声明为 Optional 的.如果不是 Opti ...
- IOS 下拉菜单
由于之前曾经用到过下拉菜单,所以现在花一些时间回过头来细细整理了一下,逐步完善这个下拉菜单,并提供一些比较基本的功能,以便日后如果有需要的话可以进行复用,并提供给需要的人参考.下拉菜单同样分为数据源和 ...