I have a SQL query that pulls data from multiple tables. The only issue I am having is really the query takes to long and I was wondering if there is anyway I can speed it up. I made some minor improvements by using INNER JOIN rather than LEFT JOIN but the query is to slow.
SELECT
clientlist.CRMContactId,
clientlist.ClientAdviser,
COALESCE(NULLIF(clientlist.FirstName, ""), clientlist.CorporateName) AS FirstName,
clientlist.LastName,
clientlist.ServiceStatusName,
FORMAT(t.totalfum, 2) AS "Funds Under Management",
FORMAT(d.totalfci, 2) AS "Total Income",
(SELECT DueDate
FROM tasks
WHERE ClientRef = clientlist.ClientRef
AND `Status` <> "Complete"
ORDER BY DueDate DESC
LIMIT 1) AS NextDate,
(SELECT CompletedDate
FROM tasks
WHERE ClientRef = clientlist.ClientRef
AND `Status` = "Complete"
ORDER BY DueDate DESC
LIMIT 1) AS LastDate
FROM
clientlist
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
plans.ClientId, SUM(plans.CurrentVal) AS totalfum
FROM
plans
GROUP BY
plans.ClientId) t ON clientlist.CRMContactId = t.ClientId
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
adviserfci.ClientId, SUM(adviserfci.Payable) AS totalfci
FROM
adviserfci
WHERE
IncomeType IN ("Renewal Commission", "Ongoing Fee", "Fund Based Commission")
OR (Incometype = "Payaway Received"
AND UnderlyingIncomeType IN ("Renewal", "Ongoing Fee", "Fund Based"))
GROUP BY
adviserfci.ClientId) d ON clientlist.CRMContactId = d.ClientId
WHERE
d.totalfci IS NOT NULL
I've also read somewhere the explain command will help determine issues however I don't understand the response.
Is there any way I can increase the performance of this query?
Fold the test for d.totalfci IS NOT NULL into the subquery that generates it, even if it needs to be in a HAVING clause.
Add some indexes
tasks: INDEX(ClientRef, `Status`, DueDate)
plans: INDEX(ClientId, CurrentVal)
adviserfci: INDEX(ClientId)
First and foremost do you have indexes created for these tables?
Without knowing your data structured and what kind of query load you're going to be putting in them is hard to tell but on first look I'd say these indexes should improve performance, if you don't have them yet:
CRMContactId on table clientlist
ClientId on table plans
ClientId on adviserfci (include IncomeType and Payable)
If you haven't set up table primary keys yet and from the column names they sound like decent candidate keys, so if that works you can kill two birds with one stone.
Related
We have two tables one is properties and another one is property meta when we are getting data from one table "properties" , query only take less then one second in execution but when we are use join to get the data using bellow query from both tables its taking more then 5 second to fetch the data although we have only 12000 record in the tables , i think there is an issue in the sql query any help or suggestion will be appreciated.
SELECT
u.id,
u.property_title,
u.description,
u.city,
u.area,
u.address,
u.slug,
u.latitude,
u.longitude,
u.sync_time,
u.add_date,
u.is_featured,
u.pre_construction,
u.move_in_date,
u.property_status,
u.sale_price,
u.mls_number,
u.bedrooms,
u.bathrooms,
u.kitchens,
u.sub_area,
u.property_type,
u.main_image,
u.area_size as land_area,
pm7.meta_value as company_name,
pm8.meta_value as virtual_tour,
u.year_built,
u.garages
FROM
tbl_properties u
LEFT JOIN tbl_property_meta pm7
ON u.id = pm7.property_id
LEFT JOIN tbl_property_meta pm8
ON u.id = pm8.property_id
WHERE
u.status = 1
AND (pm7.meta_key = 'company_name')
AND (pm8.meta_key = 'virtual_tour')
AND (
(
( u.city = 'Delta'
OR u.post_code LIKE '%Delta%'
OR u.sub_area LIKE '%Delta%'
OR u.state LIKE '%Delta%')
AND country = 'Canada'
)
OR (
( u.city = 'Metro Vancouver Regional District'
OR u.post_code LIKE '%Metro Vancouver Regional District%'
OR u.sub_area LIKE '%Metro Vancouver Regional District%'
OR u.state LIKE '%Metro Vancouver Regional District%' )
AND country = 'Canada'
)
)
AND
u.pre_construction ='0'
GROUP BY
u.id
ORDER BY
u.is_featured DESC,
u.add_date DESC
Try adding this compound index:
ALTER TABLE tbl_property_meta ADD INDEX id_key (property_id, meta_key);
If it doesn't help make things faster, try this one.
ALTER TABLE tbl_property_meta ADD INDEX key_id (meta_key, property_id);
And, you should know that column LIKE '%somevalue' (with a leading %) is a notorious performance antipattern, resistant to optimization via indexes. (There's a way to create indexes for that shape of filter in PostgreSQL, but not in MariaDB / MySQL.)
Add another column with the meta stuff; throw city, post_code, sub_area, and state and probably some other things into it. Then build a FULLTEXT index on that column. Then use MATCH(..) AGAINST("Delta Metro Vancouver Regional District") in the WHERE clause _instead of the LEFT JOINs (which are actually INNER JOINs) and the really messy part of the WHERE clause.
Also, the GROUP BY is probably unnecessary, thereby eliminating extra sort on the intermediate set of rows.
I am working on project management tool and while generating reports through admin end the loading time for the data from the database is very much > 5 minutes. There are few points which I know would help me to increase the performance but right now I need to have the help in SELECT query
SELECT timesheet_client.organisation as client_name, timesheet_project.title as project_name,
timesheet_task.name as task, CONCAT(timesheet_user.first_name, ' ', timesheet_user.last_name) as resource_name,
timesheet_user.bill_factor, timesheet_client.client_type, sum(spent) as spent, sum(delivered_hours) as delivered_hours,
sum(billable_hours) as billable_hours, comments, color, lock_color, updated_by, updated_by_date, timesheet_user_psdb.grp_id,
timesheet_user_psdb.client_id, timesheet_user_psdb.proj_id, timesheet_user_psdb.task_id, timesheet_user_psdb.uid,
timesheet_user_grp.grp_name
FROM timesheet_user_psdb,timesheet_user, timesheet_client,
timesheet_project,timesheet_task,timesheet_user_grp
WHERE timesheet_user.username=timesheet_user_psdb.uid and
timesheet_client.client_id=timesheet_user_psdb.client_id and timesheet_project.proj_id=timesheet_user_psdb.proj_id and
timesheet_task.task_id = timesheet_user_psdb.task_id and timesheet_user_grp.grp_id=timesheet_user_psdb.grp_id and month =3
AND year = 2017 and month!='' and timesheet_user_psdb.client_id=326
GROUP BY timesheet_user_psdb.task_id,timesheet_user_psdb.uid
ORDER BY timesheet_client.client_type desc,timesheet_client.organisation,timesheet_user_psdb.proj_id,
timesheet_user_psdb.task_id,timesheet_user.uid,timesheet_user_psdb.task_id;
I have already used an index on all the primary keys.
EXPLAIN Output:
Help for this would be highly appreciable.
Give this a try:
SELECT
TC.ORGANISATION AS CLIENT_NAME,
TP.TITLE AS PROJECT_NAME,
TT.NAME AS TASK,
CONCAT(TU.FIRST_NAME, ' ', TU.LAST_NAME) AS RESOURCE_NAME,
TU.BILL_FACTOR,
TC.CLIENT_TYPE, SUM(SPENT) AS SPENT, -- You should specify which table this comes from
SUM(DELIVERED_HOURS) AS DELIVERED_HOURS, -- You should specify which table this comes from
SUM(BILLABLE_HOURS) AS BILLABLE_HOURS, -- You should specify which table this comes from
COMMENTS, -- You should specify which table this comes from
COLOR, -- You should specify which table this comes from
LOCK_COLOR, -- You should specify which table this comes from
UPDATED_BY, -- You should specify which table this comes from
UPDATED_BY_DATE, -- You should specify which table this comes from
TUP.GRP_ID,
TUP.CLIENT_ID,
TUP.PROJ_ID,
TUP.TASK_ID,
TUP.UID,
TUG.GRP_NAME
FROM
TIMESHEET_USER AS TU
LEFT OUTER JOIN
TIMESHEET_USER_PSDB AS TUP
ON TU.USERNAME = TUP.UID
LEFT OUTER JOIN
TIMESHEET_USER_GRP AS TUG
ON TUP.GRP_ID = TUG.GRP_ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN
TIMESHEET_CLIENT AS TC
ON TUP.CLIENT_ID = TC.CLIENT_ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN
TIMESHEET_PROJECT AS TP
ON TUP.PROJ_ID = TP.PROJ_ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN
TIMESHEET_TASK TT
ON TUP.TASK_ID = TT.TASK_ID
WHERE
MONTH = 3 AND -- You should specify which table this comes from
YEAR = 2017 AND -- You should specify which table this comes from
MONTH != '' AND -- You should specify which table this comes from
TUP.CLIENT_ID = 326
GROUP BY
TUP.TASK_ID,
TUP.UID
ORDER BY
TC.CLIENT_TYPE DESC,
TC.ORGANISATION,
TUP.PROJ_ID,
TUP.TASK_ID,
TU.UID,
TUP.TASK_ID;
Doing the EXPLAIN should shed some light on it.
You might see a performance gain by doing the table joins explicitly in the FROM clause instead of inside the WHERE (https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/join.html). By doing explicit joins (e.g. LEFT OUTER, etc...) you will not only improve the readability of the query, but may be able to use less expensive joins where needed. This also affects how the query is executed as each clause is executed in a specific order (MySQL query / clause execution order).
i am writing a mysql query as below
SELECT `user_master`.`first_name`,
`city_name`,
`user_master`.`last_name`,
`user_master`.`user_master_id`,
`account_management_master`.`account_name`,
`donation_receipt_info`.`receipt_temple_id`,
date(dt) AS dt,
SUM(`donation_receipt_info`.`amount`) AS amount
FROM (`donation_receipt_info`)
JOIN `donation_receipt_master` ON donation_receipt_master`.`receipt_id`=`donation_receipt_info`.`receipt_id`
JOIN `account_management_master` ON `account_management_master`.`account_id`=`donation_receipt_info`.`account_id`
JOIN `user_master` ON `user_master`.`user_master_id`=`donation_receipt_master`.`user_master_id`
JOIN `user_address_info` ON `user_address_info`.`user_master_id`=`user_master`.`user_master_id`
JOIN `city_master` ON `city_master`.`city_id`=`user_address_info`.`city_id`
WHERE `donation_receipt_info`.`temple_id` = '1'
GROUP BY `donation_receipt_info`.`receipt_id`,
`donation_receipt_info`.`account_id`
the table donation_receipt_info and master have approx 42k results the query is taking way to much time of about 5 to 6 minutes to execute in mysql itself.
can someone please help me optimize the query, any help or suggestion would be very helpful
Thanks.
First, your query is impossible to read. You should format it and learn to use table aliases:
SELECT um.first_name, city_name, um.last_name, um.user_master_id, amm.account_name,
dri.receipt_temple_id, date(dt) AS dt, SUM(dri.amount) AS amount
FROM donation_receipt_info dri JOIN
donation_receipt_master drm
ON drm.receipt_id = dri.receipt_id JOIN
account_management_master amm
ON amm.account_id = dri.account_id JOIN
user_master um
ON um.user_master_id = drm.user_master_id JOIN
user_address_info uai
ON uai.user_master_id = um.user_master_id JOIN
city_master cm
ON cm.city_id = uai.city_id
WHERE dri.temple_id = '1'
GROUP BY dri.receipt_id, dri.account_id;
Next. Do all the tables have the obvious indexes? That is, each table appears to have an id and these should be declared as keys (primary keys preferably). For instance, city_master(city_id).
Next, there should be an index on donation_receipt_info(temple_id, receipt_id, account_id). This should help with the where. Note: if temple_id is really an integer, the where clause should be expressed as WHERE dri.temple_id = 1 -- no quotes. You don't want MySQL to get confused and decide not to use the index.
These changes will probably help. 5-6 minutes seems like a long time for such a query.
I am needing some SQL help. I have a SELECT statement that references several tables and is hanging up in the MySQL database. I would like to know if there is a better way to write this statement so that it runs efficiently and does not hang up the DB? Any help/direction would be appreciated. Thanks.
Here is the code:
Select Max(b.BurID) As BurID
From My.AppTable a,
My.AddressTable c,
My.BurTable b
Where a.AppID = c.AppID
And c.AppID = b.AppID
And (a.Forename = 'Bugs'
And a.Surname = 'Bunny'
And a.DOB = '1936-01-16'
And c.PostcodeAnywhereBuildingNumber = '999'
And c.PostcodeAnywherePostcode = 'SK99 9Q9'
And c.isPrimary = 1
And b.ErrorInd <> 1
And DateDiff(CurDate(), a.ApplicationDate) <= 30)
There is NO mysql error in the log. Sorry.
Pro tip: use explicit JOINs rather than a comma-separated list of tables. It's easier to see the logic you're using to JOIN that way. Rewriting your query to do that gives us this.
select Max(b.BurID) As BurID
From My.AppTable AS a
JOIN My.AddressTable AS c ON a.AppID = c.AppID
JOIN My.BurTable AS b ON c.AppID = b.AppID
WHERE (a.Forename = 'Bugs'
And a.Surname = 'Bunny'
And a.DOB = '1936-01-16'
And c.PostcodeAnywhereBuildingNumber = '999'
And c.PostcodeAnywherePostcode = 'SK99 9Q9'
And c.isPrimary = 1
And b.ErrorInd <> 1
And DateDiff(CurDate(), a.ApplicationDate) <= 30)
Next pro tip: Don't use functions (like DateDiff()) in WHERE clauses, because they defeat using indexes to search. That means you should change the last line of your query to
AND a.ApplicationDate >= CurDate() - INTERVAL 30 DAY
This has the same logic as in your query, but it leaves a naked (and therefore index-searchable) column name in the search expression.
Next, we need to look at your columns to see how you are searching, and cook up appropriate indexes.
Let's start with AppTable. You're screening by specific values of Forename, Surname, and DOB. You're screening by a range of ApplicationDate values. Finally you need AppID to manage your join. So, this compound index should help. Its columns are in the correct order to use a range scan to satisfy your query, and contains the needed results.
CREATE INDEX search1 USING BTREE
ON AppTable
(Forename, Surname, DOB, ApplicationDate, AppID)
Next, we can look at your AddressTable. Similar logic applies. You'll enter this table via the JOINed AppID, and then screen by specific values of three columns. So, try this index
CREATE INDEX search2 USING BTREE
ON AddressTable
(AppID, PostcodeAnywherePostcode, PostcodeAnywhereBuildingNumber, isPrimary)
Finally, we're on to your BurTable. Use similar logic as the other two, and try this index.
CREATE INDEX search3 USING BTREE
ON BurTable
(AppID, ErrorInd, BurID)
This kind of index is called a compound covering index, and can vastly speed up the sort of summary query you have asked about.
I'm in over my head with a big mysql query (mysql 5.0), and i'm hoping somebody here can help.
Earlier I asked how to get distinct values from a joined query
mysql count only for distinct values in joined query
The response I got worked (using a subquery with join as)
select *
from media m
inner join
( select uid
from users_tbl
limit 0,30) map
on map.uid = m.uid
inner join users_tbl u
on u.uid = m.uid
unfortunately, my query has grown more unruly, and though I have it running, joining into a derived table is taking too long because there is no indexes available to the derived query.
my query now looks like this
SELECT mdate.bid, mdate.fid, mdate.date, mdate.time, mdate.title, mdate.name,
mdate.address, mdate.rank, mdate.city, mdate.state, mdate.lat, mdate.`long`,
ext.link,
ext.source, ext.pre, meta, mdate.img
FROM ext
RIGHT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT media.bid,
media.date, media.time, media.title, users.name, users.img, users.rank, media.address,
media.city, media.state, media.lat, media.`long`,
GROUP_CONCAT(tags.tagname SEPARATOR ' | ') AS meta
FROM media
JOIN users ON media.bid = users.bid
LEFT JOIN tags ON users.bid=tags.bid
WHERE `long` BETWEEN -122.52224684058 AND -121.79760915942
AND lat BETWEEN 37.07500915942 AND 37.79964684058
AND date = '2009-02-23'
GROUP BY media.bid, media.date
ORDER BY media.date, users.rank DESC
LIMIT 0, 30
) mdate ON (mdate.bid = ext.bid AND mdate.date = ext.date)
phew!
SO, as you can see, if I understand my problem correctly, i have two derivative tables without indexes (and i don't deny that I may have screwed up the Join statements somehow, but I kept messing with different types, is this ended up giving me the result I wanted).
What's the best way to create a query similar to this which will allow me to take advantage of the indexes?
Dare I say, I actually have one more table to add into the mix at a later date.
Currently, my query is taking .8 seconds to complete, but I'm sure if I could take advantage of the indexes, this could be significantly faster.
First, check for indices on ext(bid, date), users(bid) and tags(bid), you should really have them.
It seems, though, that it's LONG and LAT that cause you most problems. You should try keeping your LONG and LAT as a (coordinate POINT), create a SPATIAL INDEX on this column and query like that:
WHERE MBRContains(#MySquare, coordinate)
If you can't change your schema for some reason, you can try creating additional indices that include date as a first field:
CREATE INDEX ix_date_long ON media (date, `long`)
CREATE INDEX ix_date_lat ON media (date, lat)
These indices will be more efficient for you query, as you use exact search on date combined with a ranged search on axes.
Starting fresh:
Question - why are you grouping by both media.bid and media.date? Can a bid have records for more than one date?
Here's a simpler version to try:
SELECT
mdate.bid,
mdate.fid,
mdate.date,
mdate.time,
mdate.title,
mdate.name,
mdate.address,
mdate.rank,
mdate.city,
mdate.state,
mdate.lat,
mdate.`long`,
ext.link,
ext.source,
ext.pre,
meta,
mdate.img,
( SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(tags.tagname SEPARATOR ' | ')
FROM tags
WHERE ext.bid = tags.bid
ORDER BY tags.bid GROUP BY tags.bid
) AS meta
FROM
ext
LEFT JOIN
media ON ext.bid = media.bid AND ext.date = media.date
JOIN
users ON ext.bid = users.bid
WHERE
`long` BETWEEN -122.52224684058 AND -121.79760915942
AND lat BETWEEN 37.07500915942 AND 37.79964684058
AND ext.date = '2009-02-23'
AND users.userid IN
(
SELECT userid FROM users ORDER BY rank DESC LIMIT 30
)
ORDER BY
media.date,
users.rank DESC
LIMIT 0, 30
You might want to compare your perforamnces against using a temp table for each selection, and joining those tables together.
create table #whatever
create table #whatever2
insert into #whatever select...
insert into #whatever2 select...
select from #whatever join #whatever 2
....
drop table #whatever
drop table #whatever2
If your system has enough memory to hold full tables this might work out much faster. It depends on how big your database is.