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
- tomcat部署应用的几种方式
接着上篇 tomcat配置详解,再来学习下如何在tomcat下部署应用 1.部署方式 第一种,最常用,直接把WAR包或者文件夹直接放到webapps目录下面,这时访问路径就是WAR包或者文件夹的名称. ...
- oracle中序列的使用
转载:http://blog.csdn.net/java958199586/article/details/7360152 序列: 是oacle提供的用于产生一系列唯一数字的数据库对象. l 自动提 ...
- LeetCode 274
H-Index Given an array of citations (each citation is a non-negative integer) of a researcher, write ...
- [改善Java代码]在明确的场景下,为集合指定初始容量
我们经常使用ArrayList,Vector,Hashmap等集合,一般都是直接用new跟上类名声明出一个集合来,然后使用add,remove,等方法进行操作,而且因为它们是自动管理长度的,所以不用我 ...
- 关于HashMap根据Value获取Key
关于我对java中集合的总结有如下三篇: 关于JDK中的集合总结(一) 关于JDK中的集合总结(二) 关于JDK中的集合总结(三) 关于数组集合之间的转换 Map中是一个key有且只有一个value. ...
- poj 2446 二分图最大匹配
思路:由(i+j)为偶数的点向(i+j)为奇数的点建边.求一次最大匹配,若正好为空格数(不包含洞)的一半,即输出YES. #include<iostream> #include<cs ...
- HDOJ2006求奇数的乘积
求奇数的乘积 Time Limit: 2000/1000 MS (Java/Others) Memory Limit: 65536/32768 K (Java/Others)Total Subm ...
- Agile.Net 组件式开发平台 - 数据报表组件
Agile.Report.dll 文件为平台数据报表支持库,基于FasstReport.Net扩展重写,提供了非常强大的自定义报表的功能使开发者为应用程序快速有效地生成报表.报表类库提供了创建报表所需 ...
- 第四十六篇、UICollectionView广告轮播控件
这是利用人的视觉错觉来实现无限轮播,UICollectionView 有很好的重用机制,这只是部分核心代码,后期还要继续完善和代码重构. #import <UIKit/UIKit.h> # ...
- C语言(简单游戏)-走出迷宫
#include <stdio.h> //宏定义 maze[ROWS][COLS];行和列; #define ROWS 7 #define COLS 6 //绘制迷宫(全局变量) char ...