Because Oracle documentation says that count(1) has better performance than count(*). I do not know why is it so. WIll it make clear some guru on this list?
JP On Tuesday 11 February 2003 18:59, you wrote: > Why use count(1) instead of count(*)? They all does the same thing. > So does count(primary key). > > Richard Ji > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:09 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > Hi, > 1. create unique index or primary key AND update statistics of the > table > 2. use count(1) instead of count(*) > > JP > > On Tuesday 11 February 2003 17:19, you wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > I issue a select count(*) from mytable and last 30 seconds. > > > > The table has 1,466,196 records and were loaded with a batch process, so > > they are in a countinous space. > > > > I consider that time exagerated. > > > > The TBS is LMT with a Uniform size of 128 MB. > > > > The block size is 8MB, version 9.2.0.1.0 in Windows 2000. > > > > Where should I start looking ??? > > > > TIA > > > > Ramon E. Estevez > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 809-565-3121 -- Pruner Jan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jan.pruner.cz/ ----------------------------- Only Robinson Crusoe had all his work done by Friday -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jan Pruner INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).