| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Darley <pdarley(at)kinesis-cem(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Count(*) Question |
| Date: | 2002-05-01 00:06:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20020501100656.B21515@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 04:45:33PM -0700, Peter Darley wrote:
> Friends,
> I was reading through the Rules section of the online docs, and noticed the
> following note: (* is just an abbreviation for all the attribute names of a
> relation. It is expanded by the parser into the individual attributes, so
> the rule system never sees it.)
> Does this mean that count(*) may return less than the total number of
> records if all the fields in a record are NULL?
Yes, I beleive so.
> If this is true, is there a better way to get a count of records?
I think count(1) is the common suggestion.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Canada, Mexico, and Australia form the Axis of Nations That
> Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Rooney | 2002-05-01 02:00:32 | Re: What popular, large commercial websites run PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Peter Darley | 2002-04-30 23:45:33 | Count(*) Question |