I can't figure out why MySQL is so slow summing less than 400 rows. Both u and t have indexes and return the rows quickly.
SELECT sum(t) FROM `s_table`
WHERE `u` LIKE 'dogs%'
AND `t`> 10000
Query took 3.5299
If I remove the sum part of the query.
SELECT t FROM `s_table`
WHERE `u` LIKE 'dogs%'
AND `t`> 10000
Query took 0.0090 seconds returns 397 rows.
So to sum 397 rows takes over 3 seconds!
Then I tried.
SELECT SUM(t)
FROM ( SELECT t
FROM s_table
WHERE `u` LIKE 'dogs%'
AND `t`> 10000
) AS total;
Query took 3.5767 seconds, so basically the same as the first query.
I'm going insane here. Why is it taking MySQL over 3 seconds to sum only 398 numbers?
Here is the explain:
CREATE TABLE `s_table` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`s` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
`v` int(12) NOT NULL,
`c` float NOT NULL,
`r` int(3) NOT NULL,
`u` varchar(350) NOT NULL,
`w` int(1) NOT NULL,
`t` int(12) NOT NULL,
`date` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `idx_v` (`v`),
KEY `idx_c` (`c`),
KEY `idx_r` (`r`),
KEY `idx_u` (`u`),
KEY `idx_t` (`t`),
KEY `idx_date` (`date`),
KEY `s` (`s`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 ROW_FORMAT=COMPRESSED
Change these
KEY `idx_u` (`u`),
KEY `idx_t` (`t`),
to
KEY `u_t` (`u`, `t`),
KEY `t_u` (`t`, `u`),
I said "change", not "add". I have seen cases where "adding" a composite index did not change the Optimizer's choice of index; I think this is a bug. Note that these 2-column indexes are "covering", which, by itself, gives a performance boost.
Don't use ROW_FORMAT=COMPRESSED, it may be expending a lot of effort in uncompressing to run the query.
The UI you are using seems to stop at 25 rows -- this could explain the extra speed.
What do you get from these? (They may help in analyzing things.)
How many rows "need" to be looked at by each single-column index:
SELECT SUM(U LIKE 'dogs%'), SUM(t > 10000) FROM s_table;
More details than a plain EXPLAIN:
EXPLAIN FORMAT=JSON SELECT ... -- your query
This will definitively say whether 397 versus 272580 rows were fetched:
FLUSH STATUS;
SELECT ...; -- your query
SHOW SESSION STATUS LIKE 'Handler%';
Related
I have user_rates table where i have two user foreign references user_id_owner and user_id_rated.
This is my create table query:
CREATE TABLE `user_rates` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id_owner` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`user_id_rated` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`value` int(11) NOT NULL COMMENT '0 - dislike, 1 - like',
`created_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `user_rates_user_id_rated_foreign` (`user_id_rated`),
KEY `user_rates_user_id_owner_foreign` (`user_id_owner`),
CONSTRAINT `user_rates_user_id_owner_foreign` FOREIGN KEY (`user_id_owner`) REFERENCES `users` (`id`),
CONSTRAINT `user_rates_user_id_rated_foreign` FOREIGN KEY (`user_id_rated`) REFERENCES `users` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=1825767 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb4 COLLATE=utf8mb4_unicode_ci
When i execute this query:
EXPLAIN SELECT
user_id_rated
FROM
`user_rates` AS ur
WHERE
ur.user_id_owner = 10101;
It shows estimate rows to examine 107000, but returning only 60000.
Can you explain me why it's examining so many rows, when it is comparing with equality operator and also comparing field is foreign key?
EDIT
I am getting this on EXPLAIN
I want to add several where clauses also. At last my query looks like this:
Explain SELECT
user_id_rated
FROM
`user_rates` AS ur
WHERE
ur.user_id_owner = 10101
AND (ur.value IN (1, 2, 3)
OR (ur.value = 0
AND ur.created_at > '2020-02-04 00:00:00'));
Output:
It will be nice if query can be more optimized. I don't understand why isn't it reducing estimate rows.
Steps i tried when optimizing
Added compose index on (user_id_owner, value, created_at)
But estimate row is not reducing, It is filtering even more rows
Maybe i am doing indexing wrong? I really don't know how to make proper indexes. Sorry for bad question, I am new here. Thanks in advance.
The "rows" is an estimate, often quite far off -- sometimes even worse than your example. The incorrectness of the estimate rarely impacts performance.
You can run ANALYZE TABLE tablename to improve the estimate. But it may still not be better.
For the current query, use:
( SELECT user_id_rated
FROM `user_rates` AS ur
WHERE ur.user_id_owner = 10101
AND ur.value IN (1, 2, 3)
)
UNION ALL
( SELECT user_id_rated
FROM `user_rates` AS ur
WHERE ur.user_id_owner = 10101
AND ur.value = 0
AND ur.created_at > '2020-02-04 00:00:00'
);
And have the composite (and "covering") indexes:
INDEX(user_id_owner, value, user_id_rated)
INDEX(user_id_owner, value, created_at, user_id_rated)
If there are other variations of the query, show us. As you may guess; the details are important.
(The simplified version of the query does not provide any useful information when discussing the real query.)
I have a query that is taking an embarrassingly long time. ~7 minutes embarrassing. I would really appreciate some help. Missing indexes? Rewrite the query? All of the above?
Many thanks
mysql Ver 14.14 Distrib 5.7.25, for Linux (x86_64)
The query looks like:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS count_all, name
FROM api_events ae
INNER JOIN products p on p.token=ae.product_token
WHERE (ae.created_at > '2019-01-21 12:16:53.853732')
GROUP BY name
Here are the two table definitions
api_events has ~31 million records
CREATE TABLE `api_events` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`api_name` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
`hostname` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
`controller_action` varchar(2000) NOT NULL,
`duration` decimal(12,5) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.00000',
`view` decimal(12,5) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.00000',
`db` decimal(12,5) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.00000',
`created_at` datetime NOT NULL,
`updated_at` datetime NOT NULL,
`product_token` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `product_token` (`product_token`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=64851218 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
and
products has only 12 records
CREATE TABLE `products` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`code` varchar(30) NOT NULL,
`name` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
`description` varchar(2000) NOT NULL,
`token` varchar(50) NOT NULL,
`created_at` datetime NOT NULL,
`updated_at` datetime NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=19 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
You could improve the join performance adding index
create index idx1 on api_events(product_token, created_at);
create index idx2 on products(token);
You could also trying inverting the columns ofr api_events
create index idx1 on api_events(created_at, product_token);
and trying add redundancy to product index
create index idx2 on products(token, name);
For the query as stated, you needed
api_events: INDEX(created_at, product_token)
products: INDEX(token, name)
Because the WHERE mentions api_events, the Optimizer is likely to start with that table. created_at is in the WHERE, so the index starts with that, even though starting with a 'range' is usually wrong. In this case, the pair is "covering".
Then, INDEX(token, name) is also "covering".
"Covering" indexes give a small, but widely varying, amount of performance improvement.
What happens if you group by the token instead of the name?
SELECT ae.product_token, COUNT(*) AS count_all
FROM api_events ae
WHERE ae.created_at > '2019-01-21 12:16:53.853732')
GROUP BY ae.product_token;
For this query, an index on api_events(created_at, product_token) will probably help.
If this is faster, then you can bring in the name using a subquery.
It seems like the criteria on created_at is very selective (looking at only the past 7 days?). That's crying out to explore an index with created_at as a leading column.
The query is also referencing the product_token column from the same table, so we can include that column in the index, to make it a covering index.
api_events_IX ON api_events ( created_at, product_token )
Using that index, we can probably avoid looking at the vast majority of the 31 million rows, and quickly narrow in on the subset of rows we actually need to look at.
Using the index, the query will still need a "Using filesort" operation to satisfy the GROUP BY.
(My guess here is that the join to the 12 rows in product doesn't exclude a lot of rows... that on the vast majority of rows in api_event the product_token refers to a row that exists in product.
Use MySQL EXPLAIN to see the query execution plan.
A further possible refinement (to test the performance of) would be to do some of the aggregation in an inline view:
SELECT SUM(s.count_all) AS count_all
, p.name
FROM ( SELECT COUNT(*) AS count_all
, ae.product_token
FROM api_events ae
WHERE ae.created_at > '2019-01-21 12:16:53.853732'
GROUP
BY ae.product_token
) s
JOIN products p
ON p.token = s.product_token
GROUP
BY p.name
If the assumption about product_token is misinformed, if there are lots of rows in api_event that have product_token values that don't reference a row in product ... we might take a different tack ...
I have a setup like such:
using mysql 5.5
a building has a set of measurement equipment
measurements are stored in measurements -table
there are multiple different types
users can have access to either a whole building, or a set of equipment
a few million measurements
The table creation looks like this:
CREATE TABLE `measurements` (
`id` INT(11) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`timestamp` TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`building_id` INT(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`equipment_id` INT(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`state` ENUM('normal','high','low','alarm','error') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'normal',
`measurement_type` VARCHAR(50) NULL DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
INDEX `building_id` (`building_id`),
INDEX `equipment_id` (`equipment_id`),
INDEX `state` (`state`),
INDEX `timestamp` (`timestamp`),
INDEX `measurement_type` (`measurement_type`),
INDEX `building_timestamp_type` (`building_id`, `timestamp`, `measurement_type`),
INDEX `building_type_state` (`building_id`, `measurement_type`, `state`),
INDEX `equipment_type_state` (`equipment_id`, `type`, `state`),
INDEX `equipment_type_state_stamp` (`equipment_id`, `measurement_type`, `state`, `timestamp`),
) COLLATE='utf8_unicode_ci' ENGINE=InnoDB;
Now I need to query for the last 50 measurements of certain types that the user has access to. If the user has access to a whole building, the query runs very, very fast. However, if the user only has access to separate equipments, the query execution time seems to grow linearly with the number of equipment_ids. For example, I tested having only 2 equipment_ids in the IN query and the execution time was around 10ms. At 130 equipment_ids, it took 2.5s. The query I'm using looks like this:
SELECT *
FROM `measurements`
WHERE
`measurements`.`state` IN ('high','low','alarm')
AND `measurements`.`equipment_id` IN (
SELECT `equipment_users`.`equipment_id`
FROM `equipment_users`
WHERE `equipment_users`.`user_id` = 1
)
AND (`measurements`.`measurement_type` IN ('temperature','luminosity','humidity'))
ORDER BY `measurements`.`timestamp` DESC
LIMIT 50
The query seems to favor the measurement_type index which makes it take 15seconds, forcing it to use the equipment_type_state_stamp index drops that down to the listed numbers. Still, why does the execution time go up linearly with the number of ids, and is there something I could do to prevent that?
I am optimising my queries and found something I can't get my head around.
I am using the following query to select a bunch of categories, combining them with an alias from a table containing old and new aliases for categories:
SELECT `c`.`id` AS `category.id`,
(SELECT `alias`
FROM `aliases`
WHERE category_id = c.id
AND `old` = 0
AND `lang_id` = 1
ORDER BY `id` DESC
LIMIT 1) AS `category.alias`
FROM (`categories` AS c)
WHERE `c`.`status` = 1 AND `c`.`parent_id` = '11';
There are only 2 categories with a value of 11 for parent_id, so it should look up 2 categories from the alias table.
Still if I use EXPLAIN it says it has to process 48 rows. The alias table contains 1 entry per category as well (in this case, it can be more). Everything is indexed and if I understand correctly therefore it should find the correct alias immediately.
Now here's the weird thing. When I don't compare the aliases by the categories from the conditions, but manually by the category ids the query returns, it does process only 1 row, as intended with the index.
So I replace WHERE category_id = c.id by WHERE category_id IN (37, 43) and the query gets faster:
The only thing I can think of is that the subquery isn't run over the results from the query but before some filtering is done. Any kind of explanation or help is welcome!
Edit: silly me, the WHERE IN doesn't work as it doesn't make a unique selection. The question still stands though!
Create table schema
CREATE TABLE `aliases` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`lang_id` int(2) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
`alias` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`product_id` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`category_id` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`brand_id` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`page_id` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`campaign_id` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`old` tinyint(1) unsigned DEFAULT '0',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `product_id` (`product_id`),
KEY `category_id` (`category_id`),
KEY `page_id` (`page_id`),
KEY `alias_product_id` (`product_id`,`alias`),
KEY `alias_category_id` (`category_id`,`alias`),
KEY `alias_page_id` (`page_id`,`alias`),
KEY `alias_brand_id` (`brand_id`,`alias`),
KEY `alias_product_id_old` (`alias`,`product_id`,`old`),
KEY `alias_category_id_old` (`alias`,`category_id`,`old`),
KEY `alias_brand_id_old` (`alias`,`brand_id`,`old`),
KEY `alias_page_id_old` (`alias`,`page_id`,`old`),
KEY `lang_brand_old` (`lang_id`,`brand_id`,`old`),
KEY `id_category_id_lang_id_old` (`lang_id`,`old`,`id`,`category_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=112392 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 ROW_FORMAT=COMPACT;
SELECT ...
WHERE x=1 AND y=2
ORDER BY id DESC
LIMIT 1
will be performed in one of several ways.
Since you have not shown us the indexes you have (SHOW CREATE TABLE), I will cover some likely cases...
INDEX(x, y, id) -- This can find the last row for that condition, so it does not need to look at more than one row.
Some other index, or no index: Scan DESCending from the last id checking each row for x=1 AND y=2, stopping when (if) such a row is found.
Some other index, or no index: Scan the entire table, checking each row for x=1 AND y=2; collect them into a temp table; sort by id; deliver one row.
Some of the EXPLAIN clues:
Using where -- does not say much
Using filesort -- it did a sort, apparently for the ORDER BY. (It may have been entirely done in RAM; ignore 'file'.)
Using index condition (not "Using index") -- this indicates an internal optimization in which it can check the WHERE clause more efficiently than it used to in older versions.
Do not trust the "Rows" in EXPLAIN. Often they are reasonably correct, but sometimes they are off by orders of magnitude. Here is a better way to see "how much work" is being done in a rather fast query:
FLUSH STATUS;
SELECT ...;
SHOW SESSION STATUS LIKE 'Handler%';
With the CREATE TABLE, I may have suggestions on how to improve the index.
can you please advise why such a query would take so long (literally 20-30 minutes)?
I seem to have proper indexes set up, don't I?
UPDATE `temp_val_import_435` t1,
`attr_upc` t2 SET t1.`attr_id` = t2.`id` WHERE t1.`value` LIKE t2.`upc`
CREATE TABLE `attr_upc` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`upc` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`last_update` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `upc` (`upc`),
KEY `last_update` (`last_update`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=102739 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
CREATE TABLE `temp_val_import_435` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`attr_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`translation_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`source_value` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`value` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`count` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `core_value_id` (`core_value_id`),
KEY `translation_id` (`translation_id`),
KEY `source_value` (`source_value`),
KEY `value` (`value`),
KEY `count` (`count`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=32768 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
Ed Cottrell's solution worked for me. Using = instead of LIKE sped up a smaller test query on 1000 rows by a lot.
I measured 2 ways: 1 in phpMyAdmin, the other looking at the time for DOM load (which of course involves other processes).
DOM load went from 44 seconds to 1 second, a 98% increase.
But the difference in query execution time was much more dramatic, going from 43.4 seconds to 0.0052 seconds, a decrease of 99.988%. Pretty good. I will report back on results from huge datasets.
Use = instead of LIKE. = should be much faster than LIKE -- LIKE is only for matching patterns, as in '%something%', which matches anything with "something" anywhere in the text.
If you have this query:
SELECT * FROM myTable where myColumn LIKE 'blah'
MySQL can optimize this by pretending you typed myColumn = 'blah', because it sees that the pattern is fixed and has no wildcards. But what if you have this data in your upc column:
blah
foo
bar
%foo%
%bar
etc.
MySQL can't optimize your query in advance, because it's possible that the text it is trying to match is a pattern, like %foo%. So, it has to perform a full text search for LIKE matches on every single value of temp_val_import_435.value against every single value of attr_upc.upc. With a simple = and the indexes you have defined, this is unnecessary, and the query should be dramatically faster.
In essence you are joining on a LIKE which is going to be problematic (would need EXPLAIN to see is MySQL if utilizing indexes at all). Try this:
UPDATE `temp_val_import_435` t1
INNER JOIN `attr_upc` t2
ON t1.`value` LIKE t2.`upc`
SET t1.`attr_id` = t2.`id` WHERE t1.`value` LIKE t2.`upc`