I would like to make system whitch allows to search user messages, by specific user.
assume having folowing table
create table messages(
user_id int,
message nvarchar(500));
So what kind of index I should use here, if I want to search for all messages from user 1, containing word 'foo'.
Simple, non unique index user_id
It will filter only specific user messages nd then full scan for specific word.
FULLTEXT index on message
this will find all messages from all users and then filter by ID, seems to be very inefficient in case of big amount of users.
comopound index on both user_id and message
So full text index tree is created for each user separately, so they can be searched individually. During query system filters messages by ID and then performs text search on remaining rows in index.
A.F.A.I.K. last one is impossible. So then I assume I shall use 1-st option, It will perform better in case of few thousands of users?
And if each will have ~100 messages, full iteration won't cost much resources?
Perhaps I can include username into message and use BOOLEAN full text search mode, but I think it would be slower than by using indexed user_id.
#Alden Quimby's answer is correct as far as it goes, but there is more to the story, because MySQL will only try to choose the optimal index, and its ability to make that determination is limited because of the way fulltext indexes interact with the optimizer.
What actually happens is this:
If the specified user_id exists in either 0 or 1 matching rows in the table, the optimizer will realize this and will choose user_id as the index for that query. Fast execution.
Otherwise, the optimizer will choose the fulltext index, filtering every row matched by the fulltext index to eliminate rows not containing a user_id that matches the WHERE clause. Not quite as fast.
So it's not truly the "optimum" path. It's more like fulltext, with a nice optimization to avoid the fulltext search under the one condition that we know we have almost nothing of interest in the table.
The reason this breaks down is that a fulltext index doesn't give any meaningful statistics back to the optimizer. It just says "yeah, I think that query should probably only require me to check 1 row" ... which, of course, pleases the optimizer greatly, so the fulltext index wins the bid for lowest cost, unless the index with the integer value also comes in comparably low or lower.
Still, that doesn't mean I wouldn't try it this way first.
There's another option, which would work best with fulltext queries IN BOOLEAN MODE and that is to create another column which you would populate with something like CONCAT('user_id_',user_id) or something similar, and then declare a 2-column fulltext index.
filter_string VARCHAR(48) # populated with CONCAT('user_id_',user_id);
....
FULLTEXT KEY (message,filter_string)
Then specify everything in the query.
SELECT ...
WHERE user_id = 500 AND
MATCH (message,filter_string) AGAINST ('+kittens +puppies +user_id_500' IN BOOLEAN MODE);
Now, the fulltext index will be responsible for matching only those rows where kittens, puppies, and "user_id_500" appears in the combined fulltext index of the two columns, but you'd still want to have the integer filter there too to make sure the final results are constrained in spite of any random appearance of "user_id_500" in the message.
You should add a fulltext index on message and a regular index on user_id, and use the query:
SELECT *
FROM messages
WHERE MATCH(message) AGAINST(#search_query)
AND user_id = #user_id;
You're right that you can't do option 3. But rather than trying to pick between 1 and 2, let MySQL do the work for you. MySQL will only use one of the two indexes, and will do a linear scan to complete the second filter, but it will estimate the effectiveness of each index and choose the optimal one.
Note: only do this if you can afford the overhead of two indexes (slower insert/update/delete). Also, if you know that each user will only have a few messages, then yes it might make sense to use a simple index and do a regex in the application layer or something like that.
Turn on the "Optimizer trace" and look for "considered_execution_plans". I contend that the Optimizer will always pick the FULLTEXT index, even when some other index might be better. This may be because it is quite costly when the MATCH is not pre-computed as when the FT index is built.
More on Optimizer Trace: http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql#optimizer_trace (Earlier in that doc are my tips on FULLTEXT.)
Related
I have the following problem when running a mysql query:
Query is very slow and when i use explain the query key is null but possible_keys are avaiable and the order is correct, i also tried adding independent indexes per each row but still key was NULL.
You can see table, index and mysql explain here: https://snag.gy/vcChl6.jpg
The optimizer likely has just decided that there is no reason to use the index.
Since you are using SELECT * that means that means that if it used the index, then it would have to use the primary key from the index to then go back and look up all the necessary data from the clustered index. That is referred to as a double lookup, and is generally bad for performance. As there are so few records in this table, the optimizer likely decided that it can easily do a full table scan instead and get your result faster.
In short, this is expected behavior.
If you want to SELECT just some columns, add them to the t1 index and then just SELECT only the columns you need, with that given WHERE clause. It should use the index then. As your table grows in size, it may start using the index as well, once it estimates that the double lookup is cheaper than the full table scan.
A guess: Most rows are of that 'project' and that 'lang'.
The Optimizer does not understand that fact, so it takes the index that is obviously the best:
(id_project, id_lang)
This one would be equally good: (id_lang, id_project).
No fair... The EXPLAIN mentions indexes named id_project and id_lang (not useful), but the list of indexes shows a composite index t1(id_project, id_lang) (useful).
Then, as Willem suggests, it has to bounce between the index and the table. Normally (that is, when it has adequate statistics), the Optimizer will say "Oh, more than ~20% of the table is being referenced; let's ignore any index."
Things you can do:
Get rid of that index.
Change * to a list of just the columns you need. In particular, if you avoid the 3 TEXT columns, two optimizations kick in. Alternatively, any that will never be longer than 255 characters can be changed to VARCHAR(255).
Use some other filtering, ordering, limiting, etc. If this is a web application, do you really want to get ~534 rows?
I am really interested in how MySQL indexes work, more specifically, how can they return the data requested without scanning the entire table?
It's off-topic, I know, but if there is someone who could explain this to me in detail, I would be very, very thankful.
Basically an index on a table works like an index in a book (that's where the name came from):
Let's say you have a book about databases and you want to find some information about, say, storage. Without an index (assuming no other aid, such as a table of contents) you'd have to go through the pages one by one, until you found the topic (that's a full table scan).
On the other hand, an index has a list of keywords, so you'd consult the index and see that storage is mentioned on pages 113-120,231 and 354. Then you could flip to those pages directly, without searching (that's a search with an index, somewhat faster).
Of course, how useful the index will be, depends on many things - a few examples, using the simile above:
if you had a book on databases and indexed the word "database", you'd see that it's mentioned on pages 1-59,61-290, and 292 to 400. In such case, the index is not much help and it might be faster to go through the pages one by one (in a database, this is "poor selectivity").
For a 10-page book, it makes no sense to make an index, as you may end up with a 10-page book prefixed by a 5-page index, which is just silly - just scan the 10 pages and be done with it.
The index also needs to be useful - there's generally no point to index e.g. the frequency of the letter "L" per page.
The first thing you must know is that indexes are a way to avoid scanning the full table to obtain the result that you're looking for.
There are different kinds of indexes and they're implemented in the storage layer, so there's no standard between them and they also depend on the storage engine that you're using.
InnoDB and the B+Tree index
For InnoDB, the most common index type is the B+Tree based index, that stores the elements in a sorted order. Also, you don't have to access the real table to get the indexed values, which makes your query return way faster.
The "problem" about this index type is that you have to query for the leftmost value to use the index. So, if your index has two columns, say last_name and first_name, the order that you query these fields matters a lot.
So, given the following table:
CREATE TABLE person (
last_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
first_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
INDEX (last_name, first_name)
);
This query would take advantage of the index:
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person
WHERE last_name = "John" AND first_name LIKE "J%"
But the following one would not
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person WHERE first_name = "Constantine"
Because you're querying the first_name column first and it's not the leftmost column in the index.
This last example is even worse:
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person WHERE first_name LIKE "%Constantine"
Because now, you're comparing the rightmost part of the rightmost field in the index.
The hash index
This is a different index type that unfortunately, only the memory backend supports. It's lightning fast but only useful for full lookups, which means that you can't use it for operations like >, < or LIKE.
Since it only works for the memory backend, you probably won't use it very often. The main case I can think of right now is the one that you create a temporary table in the memory with a set of results from another select and perform a lot of other selects in this temporary table using hash indexes.
If you have a big VARCHAR field, you can "emulate" the use of a hash index when using a B-Tree, by creating another column and saving a hash of the big value on it. Let's say you're storing a url in a field and the values are quite big. You could also create an integer field called url_hash and use a hash function like CRC32 or any other hash function to hash the url when inserting it. And then, when you need to query for this value, you can do something like this:
SELECT url FROM url_table WHERE url_hash=CRC32("http://gnu.org");
The problem with the above example is that since the CRC32 function generates a quite small hash, you'll end up with a lot of collisions in the hashed values. If you need exact values, you can fix this problem by doing the following:
SELECT url FROM url_table
WHERE url_hash=CRC32("http://gnu.org") AND url="http://gnu.org";
It's still worth to hash things even if the collision number is high cause you'll only perform the second comparison (the string one) against the repeated hashes.
Unfortunately, using this technique, you still need to hit the table to compare the url field.
Wrap up
Some facts that you may consider every time you want to talk about optimization:
Integer comparison is way faster than string comparison. It can be illustrated with the example about the emulation of the hash index in InnoDB.
Maybe, adding additional steps in a process makes it faster, not slower. It can be illustrated by the fact that you can optimize a SELECT by splitting it into two steps, making the first one store values in a newly created in-memory table, and then execute the heavier queries on this second table.
MySQL has other indexes too, but I think the B+Tree one is the most used ever and the hash one is a good thing to know, but you can find the other ones in the MySQL documentation.
I highly recommend you to read the "High Performance MySQL" book, the answer above was definitely based on its chapter about indexes.
Basically an index is a map of all your keys that is sorted in order. With a list in order, then instead of checking every key, it can do something like this:
1: Go to middle of list - is higher or lower than what I'm looking for?
2: If higher, go to halfway point between middle and bottom, if lower, middle and top
3: Is higher or lower? Jump to middle point again, etc.
Using that logic, you can find an element in a sorted list in about 7 steps, instead of checking every item.
Obviously there are complexities, but that gives you the basic idea.
Take a look at this link: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysql-indexes.html
How they work is too broad of a subject to cover in one SO post.
Here is one of the best explanations of indexes I have seen. Unfortunately it is for SQL Server and not MySQL. I'm not sure how similar the two are...
In MySQL InnoDB, there are two types of index.
Primary key which is called clustered index. Index key words are stored with
real record data in the B+Tree leaf node.
Secondary key which is non clustered index. These index only store primary key's key words along with their own index key words in the B+Tree leaf node. So when searching from secondary index, it will first find its primary key index key words and scan the primary key B+Tree to find the real data records. This will make secondary index slower compared to primary index search. However, if the select columns are all in the secondary index, then no need to look up primary index B+Tree again. This is called covering index.
Take at this videos for more details about Indexing
Simple Indexing
You can create a unique index on a table. A unique index means that two rows cannot have the same index value. Here is the syntax to create an Index on a table
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_name
ON table_name ( column1, column2,...);
You can use one or more columns to create an index. For example, we can create an index on tutorials_tbl using tutorial_author.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX AUTHOR_INDEX
ON tutorials_tbl (tutorial_author)
You can create a simple index on a table. Just omit UNIQUE keyword from the query to create simple index. Simple index allows duplicate values in a table.
If you want to index the values in a column in descending order, you can add the reserved word DESC after the column name.
mysql> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX AUTHOR_INDEX
ON tutorials_tbl (tutorial_author DESC)
Adding some visual representation to the list of answers.
MySQL uses an extra layer of indirection: secondary index records point to primary index records, and the primary index itself holds the on-disk row locations. If a row offset changes, only the primary index needs to be updated.
Caveat: Disk data structure looks flat in the diagram but actually is a
B+ tree.
Source: link
I want to add my 2 cents. I am far from being a database expert, but I've recently read up a bit on this topic; enough for me to try and give an ELI5. So, here's may layman's explanation.
I understand it as such that an index is like a mini-mirror of your table, pretty much like an associative array. If you feed it with a matching key then you can just jump to that row in one "command".
But if you didn't have that index / array, the query interpreter must use a for-loop to go through all rows and check for a match (the full-table scan).
Having an index has the "downside" of extra storage (for that mini-mirror), in exchange for the "upside" of looking up content faster.
Note that (in dependence of your db engine) creating primary, foreign or unique keys automatically sets up a respective index as well. That same principle is basically why and how those keys work.
Let's suppose you have a book, probably a novel, a thick one with lots of things to read, hence lots of words.
Now, hypothetically, you brought two dictionaries, consisting of only words that are only used, at least one time in the novel. All words in that two dictionaries are stored in typical alphabetical order. In hypothetical dictionary A, words are printed only once while in hypothetical dictionary B words are printed as many numbers of times it is printed in the novel. Remember, words are sorted alphabetically in both the dictionaries.
Now you got stuck at some point while reading a novel and need to find the meaning of that word from anyone of those hypothetical dictionaries. What you will do? Surely you will jump to that word in a few steps to find its meaning, rather look for the meaning of each of the words in the novel, from starting, until you reach that bugging word.
This is how the index works in SQL. Consider Dictionary A as PRIMARY INDEX, Dictionary B as KEY/SECONDARY INDEX, and your desire to get for the meaning of the word as a QUERY/SELECT STATEMENT.
The index will help to fetch the data at a very fast rate. Without an index, you will have to look for the data from the starting, unnecessarily time-consuming costly task.
For more about indexes and types, look this.
Indexes are used to find rows with specific column values quickly. Without an index, MySQL must begin with the first row and then read through the entire table to find the relevant rows. The larger the table, the more this costs. If the table has an index for the columns in question, MySQL can quickly determine the position to seek to in the middle of the data file without having to look at all the data. This is much faster than reading every row sequentially.
Indexing adds a data structure with columns for the search conditions and a pointer
The pointer is the address on the memory disk of the row with the
rest of the information
The index data structure is sorted to optimize query efficiency
The query looks for the specific row in the index; the index refers to the pointer which will find the rest of the information.
The index reduces the number of rows the query has to search through from 17 to 4.
I am trying to understand indexes in MySQL. I know that an index created in a table can speed up executing queries and it can slow down the inserting and updating of rows.
When creating an index, I used this query on a table called authors that contains (AuthorNum, AuthorFName, AuthorLName, ...)
Create index Index_1 on Authors ([What to put here]);
I know I have to put a column name, but which one?
Do I have to put the column name that will be compared in the Where statement when a user query the Table or what?
The Anatomy of an Index
An index is a distinct data structure within a database and is data redundancy. Its primary purpose is to provide an ordered representation of the indexed data through a logical ordering which is independent of the physical ordering. We do this using a doubly linked list and a tree structure known as the balanced search tree (B-tree). B-trees are nice because they keep data sorted and allow searches, access, insertions, and deletions in logarithmic time. Because of the doubly linked list, we are able to go backwards or forwards as needed on the index for various queries easily. Inserts become simple since we only have to rearrange pointers to the different pieces of data. Databases use these doubly linked list to connect leaf nodes (usually in a B+ tree or B-tree), each of which are stored in a page, and to establish logical ordering between the leaf nodes. Operations like UPDATE or INSERT become slower because they are actually two writing operations in the filesystem (one for the table data and one for the index data).
Defining an Optimal Index With WHERE
To define an optimal index you must not only understand how indexes work, but you must also understand how the application queries the data. E.g., you must know the column combinations that appear in the WHERE clause.
A common restriction with queries on LAST_NAME and FIRST_NAME columns deals with case sensitivity. For example, instead of doing an exact search like Hotinger we would prefer to match all results such as HoTingEr and so on. This is very easy to do in a WHERE clause: we just say WHERE UPPER(LAST_NAME) = UPPER('Hotinger')
However, if we define an index of LAST_NAME and query, it will actually run a full table scan because the query is not on LAST_NAME but on UPPER(LAST_NAME). From the database's perspective, this is completely different. So, in this case you should define the index on UPPER(LAST_NAME) instead.
Indexes do not necessarily have to be for one column. For example, if the primary key is a composite key (consisting of multiple columns) it will create a concatenated index also known as a combined index. Note that the ordering of the concatenated index has a significant impact on its usability and scalability so it must be chosen carefully. Basically, the ordering should match the way it is ordered in the WHERE clause.
Defining an Optimal Index With LIKE
The position of the wildcard characters makes a huge difference. LIKE clauses only use the characters before the wildcard during tree traversal; the rest do not narrow the scanned index range. The more selective the prefix of the LIKE clause the more narrow the scanned index becomes. This makes the index lookup faster. As a tip, avoid LIKE clauses which lead with wildcards like "%OTINGER%" For full-text searches, MySQL offers MATCH and AGAINST keywords. Starting with MySQL 5.6, you can have full-text indexes. Look at Full-Text Search Functions from MySQL for more in-depth discussion on indexing these results.
Yes, generally you need an index on the column or columns that you compare in the WHERE clause of your queries to speed up queries.
If you search by AuthorFName, then you create an index on that column. If they search by AuthorLName, then you create an index on that column.
In this case though, maybe what you should be looking at is a FULLTEXT index. That would allow users to enter fuzzy queries, which would return a number of results ordered by relevance.
From the MySQL Manual:
Indexes are used to find rows with specific column values quickly.
Without an index, MySQL must begin with the first row and then read
through the entire table to find the relevant rows. The larger the
table, the more this costs. If the table has an index for the columns
in question, MySQL can quickly determine the position to seek to in
the middle of the data file without having to look at all the data. If
a table has 1,000 rows, this is at least 100 times faster than reading
sequentially. If you need to access most of the rows, it is faster to
read sequentially, because this minimizes disk seeks.
An index usually means a B-Tree. Understand the structure of the B-Tree and you'll understand what index can and cannot do.
In your particular case:
WHERE AuthorLName = 'something' and WHERE AuthorLName LIKE 'something%' can be sped-up by an index on {AuthorLName}.
WHERE AuthorLName = 'something AND AuthorFName = 'something else' can be sped-up by a composite index on {AuthorLName, AuthorFName} or {AuthorFName, AuthorLName}.
WHERE AuthorLName = 'something OR AuthorFName = 'something else' (which doesn't make much sense, but is here as an example) can be sped-up by having two indexes: on {AuthorLName} and on {AuthorFName}.
WHERE AuthorLName LIKE '%something' cannot be sped-up by a B-Tree index (cunsider full-text indexing).
Etc...
See Use The Index, Luke! for a much more thorough treatment of the subject than possible in a simple SO post.
Limited length index:
When using text columns or very large varchar columns you won't be able to create an index over the entire length of the text/varchar, there are some limits (around 1024 ASCII characters in length).
In such a case you specify the length in the index declaration.
CREATE INDEX `my_limited_length_index` ON `my_table`(`long_text_content`(512));
-- please notice the use of the numeric length of the index after the column name
Processed value index (apparently available in PostgreSQL not MySQL):
Indexes are not exclusively built from one column, some may be built from multiple columns and other may be built from just some of the info a column has. For example if you have a full datetime column but you know you're only going to filter records by date you can build an index based on the datetime column but only containing date info.
-- `my_table` has a `created` column of type timestamp
CREATE INDEX `my_date_created` ON `my_table`(DATE(`created`));
-- please notice the use of the DATE function which extracts only
-- the date from the `created` timestamp
index shall span the columns you are going to use in WHERE statement.
To better understand, here is an example:
SELECT * FROM Authors WHERE AuthorNum > 10 AND AuthorLName LIKE 'A%';
SELECT * FROM Authors WHERE AuthorLName LIKE 'Be%';
If you are often using the shown above queries, you are highly adviced to have two indexes:
Create index AuthNum_AuthLName_Index on Authors (AuthorNum, AuthorLName);
Create index AuthLName_Index on Authors (AuthorLName);
The key thing to remember: index shall have the same combiation of columns used in WHERE statements
I would like to make system whitch allows to search user messages, by specific user.
assume having folowing table
create table messages(
user_id int,
message nvarchar(500));
So what kind of index I should use here, if I want to search for all messages from user 1, containing word 'foo'.
Simple, non unique index user_id
It will filter only specific user messages nd then full scan for specific word.
FULLTEXT index on message
this will find all messages from all users and then filter by ID, seems to be very inefficient in case of big amount of users.
comopound index on both user_id and message
So full text index tree is created for each user separately, so they can be searched individually. During query system filters messages by ID and then performs text search on remaining rows in index.
A.F.A.I.K. last one is impossible. So then I assume I shall use 1-st option, It will perform better in case of few thousands of users?
And if each will have ~100 messages, full iteration won't cost much resources?
Perhaps I can include username into message and use BOOLEAN full text search mode, but I think it would be slower than by using indexed user_id.
#Alden Quimby's answer is correct as far as it goes, but there is more to the story, because MySQL will only try to choose the optimal index, and its ability to make that determination is limited because of the way fulltext indexes interact with the optimizer.
What actually happens is this:
If the specified user_id exists in either 0 or 1 matching rows in the table, the optimizer will realize this and will choose user_id as the index for that query. Fast execution.
Otherwise, the optimizer will choose the fulltext index, filtering every row matched by the fulltext index to eliminate rows not containing a user_id that matches the WHERE clause. Not quite as fast.
So it's not truly the "optimum" path. It's more like fulltext, with a nice optimization to avoid the fulltext search under the one condition that we know we have almost nothing of interest in the table.
The reason this breaks down is that a fulltext index doesn't give any meaningful statistics back to the optimizer. It just says "yeah, I think that query should probably only require me to check 1 row" ... which, of course, pleases the optimizer greatly, so the fulltext index wins the bid for lowest cost, unless the index with the integer value also comes in comparably low or lower.
Still, that doesn't mean I wouldn't try it this way first.
There's another option, which would work best with fulltext queries IN BOOLEAN MODE and that is to create another column which you would populate with something like CONCAT('user_id_',user_id) or something similar, and then declare a 2-column fulltext index.
filter_string VARCHAR(48) # populated with CONCAT('user_id_',user_id);
....
FULLTEXT KEY (message,filter_string)
Then specify everything in the query.
SELECT ...
WHERE user_id = 500 AND
MATCH (message,filter_string) AGAINST ('+kittens +puppies +user_id_500' IN BOOLEAN MODE);
Now, the fulltext index will be responsible for matching only those rows where kittens, puppies, and "user_id_500" appears in the combined fulltext index of the two columns, but you'd still want to have the integer filter there too to make sure the final results are constrained in spite of any random appearance of "user_id_500" in the message.
You should add a fulltext index on message and a regular index on user_id, and use the query:
SELECT *
FROM messages
WHERE MATCH(message) AGAINST(#search_query)
AND user_id = #user_id;
You're right that you can't do option 3. But rather than trying to pick between 1 and 2, let MySQL do the work for you. MySQL will only use one of the two indexes, and will do a linear scan to complete the second filter, but it will estimate the effectiveness of each index and choose the optimal one.
Note: only do this if you can afford the overhead of two indexes (slower insert/update/delete). Also, if you know that each user will only have a few messages, then yes it might make sense to use a simple index and do a regex in the application layer or something like that.
Turn on the "Optimizer trace" and look for "considered_execution_plans". I contend that the Optimizer will always pick the FULLTEXT index, even when some other index might be better. This may be because it is quite costly when the MATCH is not pre-computed as when the FT index is built.
More on Optimizer Trace: http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql#optimizer_trace (Earlier in that doc are my tips on FULLTEXT.)
I am really interested in how MySQL indexes work, more specifically, how can they return the data requested without scanning the entire table?
It's off-topic, I know, but if there is someone who could explain this to me in detail, I would be very, very thankful.
Basically an index on a table works like an index in a book (that's where the name came from):
Let's say you have a book about databases and you want to find some information about, say, storage. Without an index (assuming no other aid, such as a table of contents) you'd have to go through the pages one by one, until you found the topic (that's a full table scan).
On the other hand, an index has a list of keywords, so you'd consult the index and see that storage is mentioned on pages 113-120,231 and 354. Then you could flip to those pages directly, without searching (that's a search with an index, somewhat faster).
Of course, how useful the index will be, depends on many things - a few examples, using the simile above:
if you had a book on databases and indexed the word "database", you'd see that it's mentioned on pages 1-59,61-290, and 292 to 400. In such case, the index is not much help and it might be faster to go through the pages one by one (in a database, this is "poor selectivity").
For a 10-page book, it makes no sense to make an index, as you may end up with a 10-page book prefixed by a 5-page index, which is just silly - just scan the 10 pages and be done with it.
The index also needs to be useful - there's generally no point to index e.g. the frequency of the letter "L" per page.
The first thing you must know is that indexes are a way to avoid scanning the full table to obtain the result that you're looking for.
There are different kinds of indexes and they're implemented in the storage layer, so there's no standard between them and they also depend on the storage engine that you're using.
InnoDB and the B+Tree index
For InnoDB, the most common index type is the B+Tree based index, that stores the elements in a sorted order. Also, you don't have to access the real table to get the indexed values, which makes your query return way faster.
The "problem" about this index type is that you have to query for the leftmost value to use the index. So, if your index has two columns, say last_name and first_name, the order that you query these fields matters a lot.
So, given the following table:
CREATE TABLE person (
last_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
first_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
INDEX (last_name, first_name)
);
This query would take advantage of the index:
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person
WHERE last_name = "John" AND first_name LIKE "J%"
But the following one would not
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person WHERE first_name = "Constantine"
Because you're querying the first_name column first and it's not the leftmost column in the index.
This last example is even worse:
SELECT last_name, first_name FROM person WHERE first_name LIKE "%Constantine"
Because now, you're comparing the rightmost part of the rightmost field in the index.
The hash index
This is a different index type that unfortunately, only the memory backend supports. It's lightning fast but only useful for full lookups, which means that you can't use it for operations like >, < or LIKE.
Since it only works for the memory backend, you probably won't use it very often. The main case I can think of right now is the one that you create a temporary table in the memory with a set of results from another select and perform a lot of other selects in this temporary table using hash indexes.
If you have a big VARCHAR field, you can "emulate" the use of a hash index when using a B-Tree, by creating another column and saving a hash of the big value on it. Let's say you're storing a url in a field and the values are quite big. You could also create an integer field called url_hash and use a hash function like CRC32 or any other hash function to hash the url when inserting it. And then, when you need to query for this value, you can do something like this:
SELECT url FROM url_table WHERE url_hash=CRC32("http://gnu.org");
The problem with the above example is that since the CRC32 function generates a quite small hash, you'll end up with a lot of collisions in the hashed values. If you need exact values, you can fix this problem by doing the following:
SELECT url FROM url_table
WHERE url_hash=CRC32("http://gnu.org") AND url="http://gnu.org";
It's still worth to hash things even if the collision number is high cause you'll only perform the second comparison (the string one) against the repeated hashes.
Unfortunately, using this technique, you still need to hit the table to compare the url field.
Wrap up
Some facts that you may consider every time you want to talk about optimization:
Integer comparison is way faster than string comparison. It can be illustrated with the example about the emulation of the hash index in InnoDB.
Maybe, adding additional steps in a process makes it faster, not slower. It can be illustrated by the fact that you can optimize a SELECT by splitting it into two steps, making the first one store values in a newly created in-memory table, and then execute the heavier queries on this second table.
MySQL has other indexes too, but I think the B+Tree one is the most used ever and the hash one is a good thing to know, but you can find the other ones in the MySQL documentation.
I highly recommend you to read the "High Performance MySQL" book, the answer above was definitely based on its chapter about indexes.
Basically an index is a map of all your keys that is sorted in order. With a list in order, then instead of checking every key, it can do something like this:
1: Go to middle of list - is higher or lower than what I'm looking for?
2: If higher, go to halfway point between middle and bottom, if lower, middle and top
3: Is higher or lower? Jump to middle point again, etc.
Using that logic, you can find an element in a sorted list in about 7 steps, instead of checking every item.
Obviously there are complexities, but that gives you the basic idea.
Take a look at this link: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysql-indexes.html
How they work is too broad of a subject to cover in one SO post.
Here is one of the best explanations of indexes I have seen. Unfortunately it is for SQL Server and not MySQL. I'm not sure how similar the two are...
In MySQL InnoDB, there are two types of index.
Primary key which is called clustered index. Index key words are stored with
real record data in the B+Tree leaf node.
Secondary key which is non clustered index. These index only store primary key's key words along with their own index key words in the B+Tree leaf node. So when searching from secondary index, it will first find its primary key index key words and scan the primary key B+Tree to find the real data records. This will make secondary index slower compared to primary index search. However, if the select columns are all in the secondary index, then no need to look up primary index B+Tree again. This is called covering index.
Take at this videos for more details about Indexing
Simple Indexing
You can create a unique index on a table. A unique index means that two rows cannot have the same index value. Here is the syntax to create an Index on a table
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_name
ON table_name ( column1, column2,...);
You can use one or more columns to create an index. For example, we can create an index on tutorials_tbl using tutorial_author.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX AUTHOR_INDEX
ON tutorials_tbl (tutorial_author)
You can create a simple index on a table. Just omit UNIQUE keyword from the query to create simple index. Simple index allows duplicate values in a table.
If you want to index the values in a column in descending order, you can add the reserved word DESC after the column name.
mysql> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX AUTHOR_INDEX
ON tutorials_tbl (tutorial_author DESC)
Adding some visual representation to the list of answers.
MySQL uses an extra layer of indirection: secondary index records point to primary index records, and the primary index itself holds the on-disk row locations. If a row offset changes, only the primary index needs to be updated.
Caveat: Disk data structure looks flat in the diagram but actually is a
B+ tree.
Source: link
I want to add my 2 cents. I am far from being a database expert, but I've recently read up a bit on this topic; enough for me to try and give an ELI5. So, here's may layman's explanation.
I understand it as such that an index is like a mini-mirror of your table, pretty much like an associative array. If you feed it with a matching key then you can just jump to that row in one "command".
But if you didn't have that index / array, the query interpreter must use a for-loop to go through all rows and check for a match (the full-table scan).
Having an index has the "downside" of extra storage (for that mini-mirror), in exchange for the "upside" of looking up content faster.
Note that (in dependence of your db engine) creating primary, foreign or unique keys automatically sets up a respective index as well. That same principle is basically why and how those keys work.
Let's suppose you have a book, probably a novel, a thick one with lots of things to read, hence lots of words.
Now, hypothetically, you brought two dictionaries, consisting of only words that are only used, at least one time in the novel. All words in that two dictionaries are stored in typical alphabetical order. In hypothetical dictionary A, words are printed only once while in hypothetical dictionary B words are printed as many numbers of times it is printed in the novel. Remember, words are sorted alphabetically in both the dictionaries.
Now you got stuck at some point while reading a novel and need to find the meaning of that word from anyone of those hypothetical dictionaries. What you will do? Surely you will jump to that word in a few steps to find its meaning, rather look for the meaning of each of the words in the novel, from starting, until you reach that bugging word.
This is how the index works in SQL. Consider Dictionary A as PRIMARY INDEX, Dictionary B as KEY/SECONDARY INDEX, and your desire to get for the meaning of the word as a QUERY/SELECT STATEMENT.
The index will help to fetch the data at a very fast rate. Without an index, you will have to look for the data from the starting, unnecessarily time-consuming costly task.
For more about indexes and types, look this.
Indexes are used to find rows with specific column values quickly. Without an index, MySQL must begin with the first row and then read through the entire table to find the relevant rows. The larger the table, the more this costs. If the table has an index for the columns in question, MySQL can quickly determine the position to seek to in the middle of the data file without having to look at all the data. This is much faster than reading every row sequentially.
Indexing adds a data structure with columns for the search conditions and a pointer
The pointer is the address on the memory disk of the row with the
rest of the information
The index data structure is sorted to optimize query efficiency
The query looks for the specific row in the index; the index refers to the pointer which will find the rest of the information.
The index reduces the number of rows the query has to search through from 17 to 4.