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。

作为附加信息，要在SQL Server中完成同样的事情，您只需要删除查询的“FROM dual”部分。

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。

SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table1) + (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table2) FROM dual;

SELECT  (
        SELECT COUNT(*)
        FROM   tab1
        ) AS count1,
        (
        SELECT COUNT(*)
        FROM   tab2
        ) AS count2
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)。