mysql add multiple column to large table in optimised way - mysql

Question

I wanted to add 8 new columns to a large mysql(version 5.6) table with innodb having millions of record. I am trying to achieve this in most optimised way.
Is there any advantage of using a single query to adding all columns over adding 8 columns in 8 different queries. If so would like to know why.
On specifying ALGORITHM=INPLACE, LOCK=NONE, What all things i need to take care so that it wont cause any data corruption or application failure!
I was testing out ALGORITHM=INPLACE, LOCK=NONE with the query.
ALTER TABLE table_test ADD COLUMN test_column TINYINT UNSIGNED DEFAULT 0 ALGORITHM=INPLACE LOCK = NONE;
But its taking same time as the query ran with ALGORITHM=DEFAULT. What can be the reason.
Table which im altering is having only primary key index and no other indexes. From application the queries coming to this table are:
insert into table;
select * from table where user_id=uid;
select sum(column) from table where user_id=id and date<NOW();

Answer 1

By "optimized", do you mean "fastest"? Or "least impact on other queries"?
In older versions, the optimal way (using no add-ons) was to put all the ADD COLUMNs in a single ALTER TABLE; then wait until it finishes.
In any version, pt-online-schema-change will add all the columns with only a brief downtime.
Since you mention ALGORITHM=INPLACE, LOCK=NONE, I assume you are using a newer version? So, it may be that 8 ALTERs is optimal. There would be some interference, but perhaps not "too much".
ALGORITHM=DEFAULT lets the server pick the "best". This is almost always really the "best". That is, there is rarely a need to say anything other than DEFAULT.
You can never get data corruption. At worst, a query may fail due to some kind of timeout due to the interference of the ALTER(s). You should always be checking for error (including timeouts), and take handle it in your app.
To discuss the queries...
insert into table;
One row at a time? Or batched? (Batched is more efficient -- perhaps 10x better.)
select * from table;
Surely not! That would give you all the columns for millions of rows. Why should you ever do that?
select count(column) from table where pk=id and date<NOW();
COUNT(col) checks col for being NOT NULL -- Do you need that? If not, then simply do COUNT(*).
WHERE pk=id gives you only one row; so why also qualify with date<NOW()? The PRIMARY KEY makes the query as fast as possible.
The only index is PRIMARY KEY? This seems unusual for a million-row table. Is it a "Fact" table in a "Data Warehouse" app?
Internals
(Caveat: Much of this discussion of Internals is derived indirectly, and could be incorrect.)
For some ALTERs, the work is essentially just in the schema. Eg: Adding options on the end of an ENUM; increasing the size of a VARCHAR.
For some ALTERs with INPLACE, the processing is essentially modifying the data in place -- without having to copy it. Eg: Adding a column at the end.
PRIMARY KEY changes (in InnoDB) necessarily involve rebuilding the BTree containing the data; they cannot be done INPLACE.
Many secondary INDEX operations can be done without touching (other than reading) the data. DROP INDEX throws away a BTree and makes some meta changes. ADD INDEX reads the entire table, building the index BTree on the side, then announcing its existence. CHARACTER SET and COLLATION changes require rebuilding an index.
If the table must be copied over, there is a significant lock on the table. Any ALTER that needs to read all the data has an indirect impact because of the I/O and/or CPU and/or brief locks on blocks/rows/etc.
It is unclear whether the code is smart enough to handle a multi-task ALTER in the most efficient way. Adding 8 columns in one INPLACE pass should be possible, but if it made the code too complex, that operation may be converted to COPY.
Probably a multi-task ALTER will do the 'worst' case. For example, changing the PRIMARY KEY and augmenting an ENUM will simply do both in a single COPY. Since COPY is the original way of doing all ALTERs, it is well debugged and optimized by now. (But it is slow and invasive.)
COPY is really quite simple to implement, mostly involving existing primitives:
Lock real so no one is writing to it
CREATE TABLE new LIKE real;
ALTER TABLE new ... -- whatever you asked for
copy all the rows from real to new -- this is the slow part
RENAME TABLE real TO old, new TO real; -- fast, atomic, etc.
Unlock
DROP TABLE old;
INPLACE is more complex because it must decide among many different algorithms and locking levels. DEFAULT has to punt off to COPY if it cannot do INPLACE.