Re: Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*)
Дата
Msg-id 22758.1568902312@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*)  (Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>)
Ответы Re: Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*)  (Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
Дерево обсуждения 
Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes:
> Laurenz Albe schrieb am 19.09.2019 um 12:22:
>> "count(1)" has to check if 1 IS NULL for each row, because NULL
>> values are not counted.  "count(*)" doesn't have to do that.

> But 1 is a constant, why does it need to check it for each row? 

[ shrug... ]  There's no special optimization for that case.
And I can't say that it seems attractive to add one.

            regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Kellerer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*)
Следующее
От: Mariel Cherkassky
Дата:
Сообщение: comparing output of internal pg tables of referenced tables