只是因为它略有不同:

SELECT 'table_1' AS table_name, COUNT(*) FROM table_1
UNION
SELECT 'table_2' AS table_name, COUNT(*) FROM table_2
UNION
SELECT 'table_3' AS table_name, COUNT(*) FROM table_3

它给出了转置的答案(每个表一行而不是一列)，否则我不认为它有多大不同。我认为在性能方面，它们应该是相等的。

--============= FIRST WAY (Shows as Multiple Row) ===============
SELECT 'tblProducts' [TableName], COUNT(P.Id) [RowCount] FROM tblProducts P
UNION ALL
SELECT 'tblProductSales' [TableName], COUNT(S.Id) [RowCount] FROM tblProductSales S


--============== SECOND WAY (Shows in a Single Row) =============
SELECT  
(SELECT COUNT(Id) FROM   tblProducts) AS ProductCount,
(SELECT COUNT(Id) FROM   tblProductSales) AS SalesCount

select (select count(*) from tab1) count_1, (select count(*) from tab2) count_2 from dual;

我很快想到了:

Select (select count(*) from Table1) as Count1, (select count(*) from Table2) as Count2

注意:我在SQL Server中测试了这个，所以从Dual是不必要的(因此存在差异)。

如果表(或者至少是一个键列)是相同类型的，那么就先做联合，然后计数。

select count(*) 
  from (select tab1key as key from schema.tab1 
        union all 
        select tab2key as key from schema.tab2
       )

或者把你的语句加上另一个和()。

select sum(amount) from
(
select count(*) amount from schema.tab1 union all select count(*) amount from schema.tab2
)

我的经验是使用SQL Server，但是你能做到:

select (select count(*) from table1) as count1,
  (select count(*) from table2) as count2

在SQL Server我得到的结果，你是后。