On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Can somebody explain why a standalone count(*) returns 1?
> > postgres=# select count(*);
> > count
> > -------
> > 1
> > (1 row)
> The Oracle equivalent of that would be "SELECT count(*) FROM dual".
> Does it make more sense to you thought of that way?
For a user, Oracle's case makes perfect sense, since the command is
querying a single-row table. In Postgres' case, there's nothing being
queried, so the result's got to be either 0 or NULL.
> > I agree it's an odd thing for someone to query, but I feel it should
> > 0, and not 1.
> For that to return zero, it would also be necessary for "SELECT 2+2"
> to return zero rows. Which would be consistent with some views of the
> universe, but not particularly useful. Another counterexample is
> regression=# select sum(42);
> (1 row)
> which by your argument would need to return NULL, since that would be
> SUM's result over zero rows.
Hmm.. Now that you put it that way, I agree it's a useful feature, or
shall I say, a quirk with useful side effect.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Amit kapila||Date: 2013-01-14 06:47:02|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
changed via SQL [review]|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-14 03:34:33|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED|