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. Oracle 版本查看及版本号说明

    http://blog.163.com/magicc_love/blog/static/185853662201210194592757/ select * from v$version; 或sele ...

  2. CSS的总结(选择器,伪类等...)

    关于组合选择器可参考:http://www.cnblogs.com/starof/p/4453458.html 主要内容 CSS概述 CSS和HTML结合的四种方式 CSS样式优先级和代码规范 CSS ...

  3. Tamperdata工具使用(登陆时就修改用户名),篡改post数据

    Tamperdata是firefox上的一款插件,它可以实现篡改数据的功能,这样可以做一些安全的测试验证,他的原理就是在发出请求前,在本地就开始改动数据,下面修改post请求 1.安装Tamperda ...

  4. stop()方法的精准应用

    stop()方法在动画中扮演了很精彩的角色,他能够阻止连续动画或连续事件出现累积的状况,令动画有条不紊的进行. 1语法结构 stop([clearQueue],[gotoEnd]); 这两个参数都是可 ...

  5. Slickflow.NET 开源工作流引擎基础介绍(一) -- 引擎基本服务接口API介绍

    1. 工作流术语图示                                              图1 流程图形的BPMN图形元素表示 1) 流程模型定义说明流程(Process):是企 ...

  6. WebAPI GET和POST请求的几种方式

    GET请求 1.无参数get请求 一般get请求有两种写法,一种是$.get()   一种是$.ajax({type:"get"}),我个人比较喜欢用后者. 下面例子主要是get无 ...

  7. Javascript之相册拖动管理

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/ ...

  8. iOS开发——iOS10升级极光推送SDK、友盟分享SDK

    前不久升级了Xcode8 ,同时iOS10系统也推送久. 由于公司需要适配iOS 10系统,同时第三方sdk建议升级. 包含替换升级新的SDK和相应的代码修改. 主要分享如何升级极光推送SDK,友盟分 ...

  9. popViewControllerAnimated 后,对页面内UITableView 内数据刷新

    popViewControllerAnimated后,这时它不执行viewDidLoad,所以不能及时对viewControler及时刷新,此时对该页面进行操作可以调用viewWillAppear:( ...

  10. 【译】在JavaScript中{}+{}的结果是什么?

    原文链接:What is {} + {} in JavaScript? 最近,Gary Bernhardt在一个名为'Wat'的闪电演讲中提到了一些有趣的JavaScript技巧.当你把一个objec ...