I have posts and websites (and connecting post_websites). Each post can be on multiple websites, and some websites share the content, so I am trying to access the posts which are attached to particular website IDs.
Most of the cases WHERE IN works fine, but not for all websites, some of them are laggy, and I can't understand a difference.
SELECT *
FROM `posts`
WHERE `posts`.`id` IN (
SELECT `post_websites`.`post_id`
FROM `post_websites`
WHERE `website_id` IN (
12054,
19829,
2258,
253
)
) AND
`status` = 1 AND
`posts`.`deleted_at` IS NULL
ORDER BY `post_date` DESC
LIMIT 6
Explain
select_type
table
type
key
key_len
ref
rows
Extra
SIMPLE
post_websites
range
post_websites_website_id_index
4
NULL
440
Using index condition; Using temporary; Using filesort; Start temporary
SIMPLE
posts
eq_ref
PRIMARY
4
post_websites.post_id
1
Using where; End temporary
Other version with EXISTS
SELECT *
FROM `posts`
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT `post_websites`.`post_id`
FROM `post_websites`
WHERE `website_id` IN (
12054,
19829,
2258,
253
) AND
`posts`.`id` = `post_websites`.`post_id`
) AND
`status` = 1 AND
`deleted_at` IS NULL
ORDER BY `post_date` DESC
LIMIT 6
EXPLAIN:
select_type
table
type
key
key_len
ref
rows
Extra
PRIMARY
posts
index
post_date_index
5
NULL
12
Using where
DEPENDENT SUBQUERY
post_websites
ref
post_id_website_id_unique
4
post.id
1
Using where; Using index
Long story short: based on different amounts of posts on each site and amount of websites sharing content the results are different from 20ms to 50s!
Based on the EXPLAIN the EXISTS works better, but on practice when the amount of data in subquery is lower, it can be very slow.
Is there a query I am missing that could work like a charm for all cases? Or should I check something before querying and choose the method of doing so dynamically?
migrations:
CREATE TABLE `posts` (
`id` int(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`title` varchar(225) COLLATE utf8_unicode_ci NOT NULL,
`description` varchar(500) COLLATE utf8_unicode_ci NOT NULL,
`post_date` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`status` tinyint(4) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
`created_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`deleted_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_unicode_ci;
ALTER TABLE `posts`
ADD PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
ADD KEY `created_at_index` (`created_at`) USING BTREE,
ADD KEY `status_deleted_at_index` (`status`,`deleted_at`) USING BTREE,
ADD KEY `post_date_index` (`post_date`) USING BTREE,
ADD KEY `id_post_date_status_deleted_at` (`id`,`post_date`,`status`,`deleted_at`) USING BTREE;
CREATE TABLE `post_websites` (
`post_id` int(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`website_id` int(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_unicode_ci;
ALTER TABLE `post_websites`
ADD PRIMARY KEY (`website_id`, `post_id`),
ADD UNIQUE KEY `post_id_website_id_unique` (`post_id`,`website_id`),
ADD KEY `website_id_index` (`website_id`),
ADD KEY `post_id_index` (`post_id`);
eloquent:
$news = Post::select(['title', 'description'])
->where('status', 1)
->whereExists(
function ($query) use ($sites) {
$query->select('post_websites.post_id')
->from('post_websites')
->whereIn('websites_id', $sites)
->whereRaw('post_websites.post_id = posts.id');
})
->orderBy('post_date', 'desc');
->limit(6)
->get();
or
$q->whereIn('posts.id',
function ($query) use ($sites) {
$query->select('post_websites.post_id')
->from('post_websites')
->whereIn('website_id', $sites);
});
Thanks.
Many:many table: http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql#many_to_many_mapping_table
That says to get rid if id (because it slows things down), promote that UNIQUE to be the PK, and add an INDEX in the opposite direction.
Don't use IN ( SELECT ... ). A simple JOIN is probably the best alternative here.
Did some 3rd party package provide those 3 TIMESTAMPs for each table? Are they ever used? Get rid of them.
KEY `id_post_date_status_deleted_at` (`id`,`post_date`,`status`,`deleted_at`) USING BTREE;
is mostly backward. Some rules:
Don't start an index with the PRIMARY KEY column(s).
Do start an index with = tests: status,deleted_at
Related
I have these tables.
CREATE TABLE `movements` (
`movementId` mediumint(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`movementType` tinyint(3) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`deleted` tinyint(1) UNSIGNED NOT NULL
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
ALTER TABLE `movements`
ADD PRIMARY KEY (`movementId`),
ADD KEY `movementType` (`movementType`) USING BTREE,
ADD KEY `deleted` (`deleted`),
ADD KEY `movementId` (`movementId`,`deleted`);
CREATE TABLE `movements_items` (
`movementId` mediumint(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`itemId` mediumint(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
`qty` decimal(10,3) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
ALTER TABLE `movements_items`
ADD KEY `movementId` (`movementId`),
ADD KEY `itemId` (`itemId`),
ADD KEY `movementId_2` (`movementId`,`itemId`);
and this view called "movements_items_view".
SELECT
movements_items.itemId, movements_items.qty,
movements.movementId, movements.movementType
FROM movements_items
JOIN movements ON (movements.movementId=movements_items.movementId
AND movements.deleted=0)
The first table has 5913 rows, the second one has 144992.
The view is very fast, it loads 20 result in PhpMyAdmin in 0.0011s but as soon as I ask for a GROUP BY on it (I need it to do statistics with SUM()) es:
SELECT * FROM movements_items_view GROUP BY itemId LIMIT 0,20
time jumps to 0.2s or more and it causes "Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort" on movements join.
Any help appreciated, thanks.
EDIT:
I also run via phpMyAdmin this query to try to not use the view:
SELECT movements.movementId, movements.movementType, movements_items.qty
FROM movements_items
JOIN movements ON movements.movementId=movements_items.movementId
GROUP BY itemId LIMIT 0,20
And the performance is the same.
Edit. Here is the EXPLAIN
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE movements index PRIMARY,movementid movement_type 1 NULL 5913 Using index; Using temporary; Using filesort
1 SIMPLE movements_items ref movementId,itemId,movementId_2 movementId_2 3 movements.movementId 12 Using index
Turn it inside out. See if this works:
SELECT movementId, m.movementType, mi.qty
FROM
( SELECT movementId, qty
FROM movements_items
GROUP BY itemId
ORDER BY itemId
LIMIT 20
) AS mi
JOIN movements AS m USING(movementId)
The trick is to do the LIMIT sooner. The original way had all the data being hauled around, not just 20 rows.
In movements_items, is no column or combination of columns 'unique'? If so, make it the PRIMARY KEY.
In movement, KEY movementId (movementId,deleted) is redundant and should be dropped.
In movement_items, KEY movementId (movementId) is redundant and should be dropped.
I have a query that take 50 seconds
SELECT `security_tasks`.`itemid` AS `itemid`
FROM `security_tasks`
INNER JOIN `relations` ON (`relations`.`user_id` = `security_tasks`.`user_id` AND `relations`.`relation_type_id` = `security_tasks`.`relation_type_id` AND `relations`.`relation_with` = 3001 )
Records in security_tasks = 841321 || Records in relations = 234254
CREATE TABLE `security_tasks` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`itemid` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_type_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`Task_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`job_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`task_type_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`name` int(2) DEFAULT '0'
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `itemid` (`itemid`),
KEY `relation_type_id` (`relation_type_id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=1822995 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `relations` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_with` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_type_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`manager_level` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`),
KEY `relation_with` (`relation_with`),
KEY `relation_type_id` (`relation_type_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=1082882 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
what can i do to make it fast, like 1 or 2 seconds fast
EXPLAIN :
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE relations ref user_id,relation_with,relation_type_id relation_with 5 const 169 Using where
1 SIMPLE security_tasks ref relation_type_id,user_id user_id 5 transparent.relations.user_id 569 Using where
UPDATE :
adding a composite key minimized the time to 20 seconds
ALTER TABLE security_tasks ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id) ; ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id) ; ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (relation_with) ;
The problem is when the relations table has large data for the selected user (relations.relation_with` = 3001 )
any ideas ?
Adjust your compound index slightly, don't do just two, but all three parts
ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id, relation_with)
The index does not just have to be on the joined columns, but SHOULD be based on joined columns PLUS anything else that makes sense as querying criteria is concerned (within reason, takes time to learn more efficiencies). So, in the case suggested, you know the join on the user and type, but are also specific to the relation with... so that is added to the same index.
Additionally, your security task table, you could add the itemID to the index to make it a covering index (ie: covers the join conditions AND the data element(s) you want to retrieve). This too is a technique, and should NOT include all other elements in a query, but since this is a single column might make sense for your scenario. So, look into "covering indexes", but in essence, a covering index qualifies the join, but since it also has this "itemid", the engine does not have to go back to the raw data pages of the entire security tasks table to get that one column. It's part of the index so it grabs whatever qualified the join and comes along for the ride and you are done.
ALTER TABLE security_tasks ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id, itemid) ;
And for readability purposes, especially with long table names, it's good to use aliases
SELECT
st.itemid
FROM
security_tasks st
INNER JOIN relations r
ON st.user_id = r.user_id
AND st.relation_type_id = r.relation_type_id
AND r.relation_with = 3001
I'm struggling to understand if I've indexed this query properly, it's somewhat slow and I feel it could use optimization. MySQL 5.1.70
select snaps.id, snaps.userid, snaps.ins_time, usr.gender
from usersnaps as snaps
join user as usr on usr.id = snaps.userid
left join user_convert as conv on snaps.userid = conv.userid
where (conv.level is null or conv.level = 4) and snaps.active = 'N'
and (usr.status = "unfilled" or usr.status = "unapproved") and usr.active = 1
order by snaps.ins_time asc
usersnaps table (irrelevant deta removed, size about 250k records) :
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `usersnaps` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`userid` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`picture` varchar(250) NOT NULL,
`active` enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
`ins_time` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`userid`),
KEY `userid` (`userid`,`active`),
KEY `ins_time` (`ins_time`),
KEY `active` (`active`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB;
user table (irrelevant deta removed, size about 300k records) :
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `user` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`active` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
`status` enum('15','active','approval','suspended','unapproved','unfilled','rejected','suspended_auto','incomplete') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'approval',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `status` (`status`,`active`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB;
user_convert table (size about : 60k records) :
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `user_convert` (
`userid` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`level` tinyint(4) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE KEY `userid` (`userid`),
KEY `level` (`level`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB;
Explain extended returns :
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows filtered Extra
1 SIMPLE snaps ref userid,default_pic,active active 1 const 65248 100.00 Using where; Using filesort
1 SIMPLE usr eq_ref PRIMARY,active,status PRIMARY 4 snaps.userid 1 100.00 Using where
1 SIMPLE conv eq_ref userid userid 4s snaps.userid 1 100.00 Using where
Using filesort is probably your performance killer.
You need the records from usersnaps where active = 'N' and you need them sorted by ins_time.
ALTER TABLE usersnaps ADD KEY active_ins_time (active,ins_time);
Indexes are stored in sorted order, and read in sorted order... so if the optimizer chooses that index, it will go for the records with active = 'N' and -- hey, look at that -- they're already sorted by ins_time -- because of that index. So as it reads the rows referenced by the index, the result-set internally is already in the order you want it to ORDER BY, and the optimizer should realize this... no filesort required.
I would recommend changing the userid index (assuming you're not using it right now) to have active first and userid later.
That should make it more useful for this query.
Someone helped me come up with this query but its still too slow; The order by is slowing it down and I dont think its using my index
I'm hoping someone can fix it for me :D Yes I read the manual page but I can't understand it.
Query:
EXPLAIN SELECT u.id, u.url, u.title, u.numsaves
FROM urls u
JOIN tags t ON t.url_id = u.id
AND t.tag = 'osx'
ORDER BY u.numsaves DESC
LIMIT 20
Showing rows 20 - 19 ( 20 total, Query took 1.5395 sec) [numsaves: 6130 - 2107]
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE t ref tag_id tag_id 767 const 49432 Using where; Using index; Using temporary; Using filesort
1 SIMPLE u eq_ref PRIMARY,id_numsaves_IX PRIMARY 4 jcooper_whatrethebest_urls.t.url_id 1
Database:
CREATE TABLE `urls` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`url` text NOT NULL,
`domain` text,
`title` text NOT NULL,
`description` text,
`numsaves` int(11) NOT NULL,
`firstsaved` varchar(256) DEFAULT NULL,
`md5` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `md5` (`md5`),
KEY `id_numsaves_IX` (`id`,`numsaves`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=2958560 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
CREATE TABLE `tags` (
`url_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`hash` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`tag` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE KEY `tag_id` (`tag`,`url_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
I think the main problem with your query is your choice of indexes.
1) tags has a compound UNIQUE KEY on tag and url_id but no PRIMARY KEY.
If nothing else, you should make it primary - this may help a bit with performance. Also, you might want to take a close look if VARCHAR(255) is really necessary for your tags. It makes the index quite big.
2) add a separate index on numsaves since you're ordering by that. The compound index on id and numsaves is not going to help here.
3) EXPLAIN says that you have 49432 rows in tags that match "osx". This is quite redundant. You may want to split your tags table into two, one containing the text while the other contains the N:M link to urls.
This query:
explain
SELECT `Lineitem`.`id`, `Donation`.`id`, `Donation`.`order_line_id`
FROM `order_line` AS `Lineitem`
LEFT JOIN `donations` AS `Donation`
ON (`Donation`.`order_line_id` = `Lineitem`.`id`)
WHERE `Lineitem`.`session_id` = '1'
correctly uses the Donation.order_line_id and Lineitem.id indexes, shown in this EXPLAIN output:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE Lineitem ref session_id session_id 97 const 1 Using where; Using index
1 SIMPLE Donation ref order_line_id order_line_id 4 Lineitem.id 2 Using index
However, this query, which simply includes another field:
explain
SELECT `Lineitem`.`id`, `Donation`.`id`, `Donation`.`npo_id`,
`Donation`.`order_line_id`
FROM `order_line` AS `Lineitem`
LEFT JOIN `donations` AS `Donation`
ON (`Donation`.`order_line_id` = `Lineitem`.`id`)
WHERE `Lineitem`.`session_id` = '1'
Shows that the Donation table does not use an index:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE Lineitem ref session_id session_id 97 const 1 Using where; Using index
1 SIMPLE Donation ALL order_line_id NULL NULL NULL 3
All of the _id fields in the tables are indexed, but I can't figure out how adding this field into the list of selected fields causes the index to be dropped.
As requested by James C, here are the table definitions:
CREATE TABLE `donations` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`npo_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`order_line_detail_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`order_line_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`created` datetime default NULL,
`modified` datetime default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `npo_id` (`npo_id`),
KEY `order_line_id` (`order_line_id`),
KEY `order_line_detail_id` (`order_line_detail_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=7 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
CREATE TABLE `order_line` (
`id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`order_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`npo_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL default '0',
`session_id` varchar(32) collate utf8_unicode_ci default NULL,
`created` datetime default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `order_id` (`order_id`),
KEY `npo_id` (`npo_id`),
KEY `session_id` (`session_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=23 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
I also did some reading about cardinality, and it looks like both the Donations.npo_id and Donations.order_line_id have a cardinality of 2. Hopefully this suggests something useful?
I'm thinking that a USE INDEX might solve the problem, but I'm using an ORM that makes this a bit tricky, and I don't understand why it wouldn't grab the correct index when the JOIN specifically names indexed fields?!?
Thanks for your brainpower!
The first explain has "uses index" at the end. This means that it was able to find the rows and return the result for the query by just looking at the index and not having to fetch/analyse any row data.
In the second query you add a row that's likely not indexed. This means that MySQL has to look at the data of the table. I'm not sure why the optimiser chose to do a table scan but I think it's likely that if the table is fairly small it's easier for it to just read everything than trying to pick out details for individual rows.
edit: I think adding the following indexes will improve things even more and let all of the join use indexes only:
ALTER TABLE order_line ADD INDEX(session_id, id);
ALTER TABLE donations ADD INDEX(order_line_id, npo_id, id)
This will allow order_line to to find the rows using session_id and then return id and also allow donations to join onto order_line_id and then return the other two columns.
Looking at the auto_increment values can I assume that there's not much data in there. It's worth noting that the amount of data in the tables will have an effect on the query plan and it's good practice to put some sample data in there to test things out. For more detail have a look in this blog post I made some time back: http://webmonkeyuk.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/what-makes-a-good-mysql-index-part-2-cardinality/