tl;dr It Just Doesn’t Matter.
The only case where it would make any difference is if there was lots of extra data pulled in. The extra overhead needed to be “detectable” over all the other network/disk/processor factors will vary: “Try It And See”, or, run a performance analysis. Also, even if there were additional columns, since it was limited to one record, it is prudent to remember: work = effort * quantity.
I prefer the former explicit syntax myself, except for one-off interactive queries. SQL was meant to be used in a well-shaped manner.
Of course, if the columns in * matched the covered columns, then there should be absolutely no difference in terms of performance as they will have the same “shape” and query plans.
Happy coding.
solved Which one is the fastest: “*” or explicit column names? [closed]