On July 8, 2004 12:20 am, Jared Still wrote: > On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 23:28, Lyndon Tiu wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:27:28 +0530 oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > Can you let me know the difference between count(*) and count(1) ? > > > > count(1) is supposed to be more efficient and faster. > > Notice the qualifier: 'supposed to be' > > Was the claim backed up by evidence? > No and it seems that this is an oracle only feature. I tried it (count(1)) on sql server and it does not work. But it works on postgresql though. I remember reading this from somewhere, whether it is from an official oracle doc or just some db dude on the internet I do not remember. But it seems that other oracle db dudes I've met say the same thing, that count(1) is more efficient. Maybe it's a lie that's been propagated acrosshundreds of generations? I recall seeing count(1) being faster but then I did not really measure with anything more than counting sheep in my head. We should experiment and get an empirical result. I will see if I find some time to research this on oracle official docs myself. -- Lyndon Tiu ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------