Greg, I heard that many years ago - and it seemed reasonable. Then I started to doubt it, and wondered if it was one of those plausible legends. I'd love to know if it were really true, on the plus side, there does seem to be a slight difference in performance after a select count(*) conversion. on the minus side, a check of x$kcbsw shows the call to be the same for count(*) as for count(nullable). Regards Jonathan Lewis http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rahn" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Marco.Gralike@xxxxxxx> Cc: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Performance off "count(*)"
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Marco Gralike <Marco.Gralike@xxxxxxx> wrote:Am I correct in my "small understanding" of Oracle that "count(*)" has been optimized.A count(*) that uses TABLE ACCESS FULL access does not have to read each block in its entirety, it just reads the header to see how many rows are in the block. I guess you could call that "optimized".
-- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l