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?
