Laurenz Albe schrieb am 19.09.2019 um 12:22: >> https://blog.jooq.org/2019/09/19/whats-faster-count-or-count1/ >> >> Is there a reason why count(*) seems to be faster? > > "count(*)" is just the SQL standard's way of saying what you'd > normally call "count()", that is, an aggregate without arguments. > > "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?
