When I check SHOW PROCESSLIST; in database I got below query. It heavily uses CPU (more than 100%), it took 80 seconds to complete the query. We have a separate server for database(64GB RAM).
INSERT INTO `search_tmp_598075de5c7e67_73335919`
SELECT `main_select`.`entity_id`, MAX(score) AS `relevance`
FROM (SELECT `search_index`.`entity_id`, (((0)) * 1) AS score
FROM `catalogsearch_fulltext_scope1` AS `search_index`
LEFT JOIN `catalog_eav_attribute` AS `cea`
ON search_index.attribute_id = cea.attribute_id
LEFT JOIN `catalog_category_product_index` AS `category_ids_index`
ON search_index.entity_id = category_ids_index.product_id
LEFT JOIN `review_entity_summary` AS `rating`
ON `rating`.`entity_pk_value`=`search_index`.entity_id
AND `rating`.entity_type = 1
AND `rating`.store_id = 1
WHERE (category_ids_index.category_id = 2299)
) AS `main_select`
GROUP BY `entity_id`
ORDER BY `relevance` DESC
LIMIT 10000
why does this query use my full CPU resources?
Some inefficiencies:
There is a non-null condition on the records of the outer joined catalog_category_product_index. This turns the outer join into an inner join. It will be more efficient to use an inner join clause.
There is no need to have a nested query: the grouping, ordering and limiting can be done directly on the inner query.
(((0)) * 1) is just a complex way of saying 0, and taking the MAX of that will obviously still return a relevance of 0 for all records. Not only is this an inefficient way to output 0, it also makes no sense. I assume your real query has some less evident calculation there, which might need optimisation.
If catalog_eav_attribute.attribute_id is a unique field, then there is no sense in outer joining that table, because that data is not used anywhere
If review_entity_summary.entity_pk_value is unique (at least when entity_type = 1 and store_id = 1), then again there is no use in outer joining that table, because that data is not used anywhere
If the fields in the above 2 bullet points are non-unique, but the number of records returned per search_index.entity_id value is not influencing the result (as it currently stands with the obscure (((0)) * 1) value, it does not), then neither outer join is needed either.
With these assumptions, the select part can be reduced to:
SELECT search_index.entity_id,
MAX(((0)) * 1) AS relevance
FROM catalogsearch_fulltext_scope1 AS search_index
INNER JOIN catalog_category_product_index AS category_ids_index
ON search_index.entity_id = category_ids_index.product_id
WHERE category_ids_index.category_id = 2299
GROUP BY search_index.entity_id
ORDER BY relevance DESC
LIMIT 10000
I still left the (((0)) * 1) in there, but it really makes no sense.
Related
How can I turn this subquery in a JOIN?
I read that subqueries are slower than JOINs.
SELECT
reklamation.id,
reklamation.titel,
(
SELECT reklamation_status.status
FROM reklamation_status
WHERE reklamation_status.id_reklamation = reklamation.id
ORDER BY reklamation_status.id DESC
LIMIT 1
) as status
FROM reklamation
WHERE reklamation.aktiv=1
This should do it:
SELECT r.id, r.titel, MAX(s.id) as status
FROM reklamation r
LEFT JOIN reklamation_status s ON s.id_reklamation = r.id
WHERE r.aktiv = 1
GROUP BY r.id, r.titel
The key point here is to use aggregation to manage the cardinality between reklamation and reklamation_status. In your original code, the inline subquery uses ORDER BY reklamation_status.id DESC LIMIT 1 to return the highest id in reklamation_status that corresponds to the current reklamation. Without aggregation, we would probably get multiple records in the resultset for each reklamation (one for each corresponding reklamation_status).
Another thing is to consider is the type of the JOIN. INNER JOIN would filter out records of reklamations that do not have a reklamation_status: the original query with the inline subquery does not behave like that, so I chose LEFT JOIN. If you can guarantee that every reklamation has at least one child in reklamation_status, you can safely switch back to INNER JOIN (which might perform more efficiently).
PS:
I read that subqueries are slower than JOINs.
This is not a universal truth. It depends on many factors and cannot be told without seeing your exact use case.
Using JOIN query can be rewritten to:
SELECT reklamation.id, reklamation.titel, reklamation_status.status
FROM reklamation
JOIN reklamation_status ON reklamation_status.id_reklamation = reklamation.id
WHERE reklamation.aktiv=1
What you read is incorrect. Subqueries can be slower, faster, or the same as joins. I would write the query as:
SELECT r.id, r.titel,
(SELECT rs.status
FROM reklamation_status rs
WHERE rs.id_reklamation = r.id
ORDER BY rs.id DESC
LIMIT 1
) as status
FROM reklamation r
WHERE r.aktiv = 1;
For performance, you want an index on reklamation_status(id_reklamation, id, status).
By the way, this is a case where the subquery is probably the fastest method for expressing this query. If you attempt a JOIN, then you need some sort of aggregation to get the most recent status. That can be expensive.
I have this two version of the same query. Both produce same results (164 rows). But the second one takes .5 sec while the 1st one takes 17 sec. Can someone explain what's going on here?
TABLE organizations : 11988 ROWS
TABLE transaction_metas : 58232 ROWS
TABLE contracts_history : 219469 ROWS
# TAKES 17 SEC
SELECT contracts_history.buyer_id as id, org.name, SUM(transactions_count) as transactions_count, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(tm.value)) as balancing_authorities
From `contracts_history`
INNER JOIN `organizations` as `org`
ON `org`.`id` = `contracts_history`.`buyer_id`
LEFT JOIN `transaction_metas` as `tm`
ON `tm`.`contract_token` = `contracts_history`.`token` and `tm`.`field` = '1'
WHERE `contracts_history`.`seller_id` = '850'
GROUP BY `contracts_history`.`buyer_id` ORDER BY `balancing_authorities` DESC
# TAKES .6 SEC
SELECT contracts_history.buyer_id as id, org.name, SUM(transactions_count) as transactions_count, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(tm.value)) as balancing_authorities
From `contracts_history`
INNER JOIN `organizations` as `org`
ON `org`.`id` = `contracts_history`.`buyer_id`
left join (select * from `transaction_metas` where contract_token in (select token from `contracts_history` where seller_id = 850)) as `tm`
ON `tm`.`contract_token` = `contracts_history`.`token` and `tm`.`field` = '1'
WHERE `contracts_history`.`seller_id` = '850'
GROUP BY `contracts_history`.`buyer_id` ORDER BY `balancing_authorities` DESC
Explain Results:
First Query: https://prnt.sc/hjtiw6
Second Query: https://prnt.sc/hjtjjg
As based on my debugging of the first query it was clear that left join to transaction_metas table was making it slow, So I tried to limit its rows instead of joining to the full table. It seems to work but I don't understand why.
Join is a set of combinations from rows in your tables. That in mind, in the first query the engine combines all the results to filter just after. In second case one it applies the filter before it tries make the combinations.
The best case would make use of filter in JOIN clause without subquery.
Much like this:
SELECT contracts_history.buyer_id as id, org.name, SUM(transactions_count) as transactions_count, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(tm.value)) as balancing_authorities
From `contracts_history`
INNER JOIN `organizations` as `org`
ON `org`.`id` = `contracts_history`.`buyer_id`
AND `contracts_history`.`seller_id` = '850'
LEFT JOIN `transaction_metas` as `tm`
ON `tm`.`contract_token` = `contracts_history`.`token`
AND `tm`.`field` = 1
GROUP BY `contracts_history`.`buyer_id` ORDER BY `balancing_authorities` DESC
Note: When you reduce the size of the join tables by filtering with subqueries, it may allow the rows fit into the buffer. Nice trick to small buffer limit.
A Better explication:
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/explain-output.html
I have SQL query with LEFT JOIN:
SELECT COUNT(stn.stocksId) AS count_stocks
FROM MedicalFacilities AS a
LEFT JOIN stocks stn ON
(stn.stocksIdMF = ( SELECT b.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
FROM medicalfacilities AS b
WHERE b.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser = a.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
ORDER BY stn.stocksId DESC LIMIT 1)
AND stn.stocksEndDate >= UNIX_TIMESTAMP() AND stn.stocksStartDate <= UNIX_TIMESTAMP())
These query I want to select one row from table stocks by conditions and with field equal value a.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser.
I get always count_stocks = 0 in result. But I need to get 1
The count(...) aggregate doesn't count null, so its argument matters:
COUNT(stn.stocksId)
Since stn is your right hand table, this will not count anything if the left join misses. You could use:
COUNT(*)
which counts every row, even if all its columns are null. Or a column from the left hand table (a) that is never null:
COUNT(a.ID)
Your subquery in the on looks very strange to me:
on stn.stocksIdMF = ( SELECT b.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
FROM medicalfacilities AS b
WHERE b.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser = a.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
ORDER BY stn.stocksId DESC LIMIT 1)
This is comparing MedicalFacilitiesIdUser to stocksIdMF. Admittedly, you have no sample data or data layouts, but the naming of the columns suggests that these are not the same thing. Perhaps you intend:
on stn.stocksIdMF = ( SELECT b.stocksId
-----------------------------^
FROM medicalfacilities AS b
WHERE b.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser = a.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
ORDER BY b.stocksId DESC
LIMIT 1)
Also, ordering by stn.stocksid wouldn't do anything useful, because that would be coming from outside the subquery.
Your subquery seems redundant and main query is hard to read as much of the join statements could be placed in where clause. Additionally, original query might have a performance issue.
Recall WHERE is an implicit join and JOIN is an explicit join. Query optimizers
make no distinction between the two if they use same expressions but readability and maintainability is another thing to acknowledge.
Consider the revised version (notice I added a GROUP BY):
SELECT COUNT(stn.stocksId) AS count_stocks
FROM MedicalFacilities AS a
LEFT JOIN stocks stn ON stn.stocksIdMF = a.MedicalFacilitiesIdUser
WHERE stn.stocksEndDate >= UNIX_TIMESTAMP()
AND stn.stocksStartDate <= UNIX_TIMESTAMP()
GROUP BY stn.stocksId
ORDER BY stn.stocksId DESC
LIMIT 1
I have a mysql query and it works fine when i use where clause, but when i donot use
where clause it gone and never gives the output and finally timeout.
Actually i have used Explain command to check the performance of the query and in both cases the Explain gives the same number of rows used in joining.
I have attached the image of output got with Explain command.
Below is the query.
I couldn't figure whats the problem here.
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
SELECT
MCI.CLIENT_ID AS CLIENT_ID, MCI.NAME AS CLIENT_NAME, MCI.PRIMARY_CONTACT AS CLIENT_PRIMARY_CONTACT,
MCI.ADDED_BY AS SP_ID, CONCAT(MUD_SP.FIRST_NAME, ' ', MUD_SP.LAST_NAME) AS SP_NAME,
MCI.FK_PROSPECT_ID AS PROSPECT_ID, MCI.DATE_ADDED AS ADDED_ON,
(SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(LT.TAG_TEXT SEPARATOR ', ')
FROM LK_TAG LT
INNER JOIN M_OBJECT_TAG_MAPPING MOTM
ON LT.PK_ID = MOTM.FK_TAG_ID
WHERE MOTM.FK_OBJECT_ID = MCI.FK_PROSPECT_ID
AND MOTM.OBJECT_TYPE = 1
AND MOTM.IS_ACTIVE = 1
) AS TAGS,
IFNULL(SUM(GET_DIGITS(MMR.RCP_AMOUNT)), 0) AS REVENUE_SO_FAR,
IFNULL(SUM(GET_DIGITS(MMR.RCP_RUPEES)), 0) AS REVENUE_INR,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_MONTHLY.PROJECT_ID) AS MONTHLY,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_FIXED.PROJECT_ID) AS FIXED,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_HOURLY.PROJECT_ID) AS HOURLY,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_ANNUAL.PROJECT_ID) AS ANNUAL,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_CURRENTLY_RUNNING.PROJECT_ID) AS CURRENTLY_RUNNING_PROJECTS,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_YET_TO_START.PROJECT_ID) AS YET_TO_START_PROJECTS,
COUNT(DISTINCT PMI_TECH_SALES_CLOSED.PROJECT_ID) AS TECH_SALES_CLOSED_PROJECTS
FROM
M_CLIENT_INFO MCI
INNER JOIN M_USER_DETAILS MUD_SP
ON MCI.ADDED_BY = MUD_SP.PK_ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_MONTH_RECEIPT MMR
ON MMR.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_FIXED
ON PMI_FIXED.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_FIXED.PROJECT_TYPE = 1
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_MONTHLY
ON PMI_MONTHLY.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_MONTHLY.PROJECT_TYPE = 2
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_HOURLY
ON PMI_HOURLY.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_HOURLY.PROJECT_TYPE = 3
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_ANNUAL
ON PMI_ANNUAL.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_ANNUAL.PROJECT_TYPE = 4
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_CURRENTLY_RUNNING
ON PMI_CURRENTLY_RUNNING.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_CURRENTLY_RUNNING.STATUS = 4
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_YET_TO_START
ON PMI_YET_TO_START.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_YET_TO_START.STATUS < 4
LEFT OUTER JOIN M_PROJECT_INFO PMI_TECH_SALES_CLOSED
ON PMI_TECH_SALES_CLOSED.CLIENT_ID = MCI.CLIENT_ID AND PMI_TECH_SALES_CLOSED.STATUS > 4
WHERE YEAR(MCI.DATE_ADDED) = '2012'
GROUP BY MCI.CLIENT_ID ORDER BY CLIENT_NAME ASC
Yes, as many people have said, the key is that when you have the where clause, mysql engine filters the table M_CLIENT_INFO --probably drammatically--.
A similar result as removing the where clause is to to add this where clause:
where 1 = 1
You will see that the performance is degraded also because mysql will try to get all the data.
Remove the where clause and all columns from select and add a count to see how many records you get. If it is reasonable, say up to 10k, then do the following,
put back the select columns related to M_CLIENT_INFO
do not include the nested one "TAGS"
remove all your joins
run your query without where clause and gradually include the joins
this way you'll find out when the timeout is caused.
I would try the following. First, MySQL has a keyword "STRAIGHT_JOIN" which tells the optimizer to do the query in the table order you've specified. Since all you left-joins are child-related (like a lookup table), you don't want MySQL to try and interpret one of those as a primary basis of the query.
SELECT STRAIGHT_JOIN ... rest of query.
Next, your M_PROJECT_INFO table, I dont know how many columns of data are out there, but you appear to be concentrating on just a few columns on your DISTINCT aggregates. I would make sure you have a covering index on these elements to help the query via an index on
( Client_ID, Project_Type, Status, Project_ID )
This way the engine can apply the criteria and get the distinct all out of the index instead of having to go back to the raw data pages for the query.
Third, your M_CLIENT_INFO table. Ensure that has an index on both your criteria, group by AND your Order By, and change your order by from the aliased "CLIENT_NAME" to the actual column of the SQL table so it matches the index
( Date_Added, Client_ID, Name )
I have "name" in ticks as it is also a reserved word and helps clarify the column, not the keyword.
Next, the WHERE clause. Whenever you apply a function to an indexed column name, it doesn't work the greatest, especially on date/time fields... You might want to change your where clause to
WHERE MCI.Date_Added between '2012-01-01' and '2012-12-31 23:59:59'
so the BETWEEN range is showing the entire year and the index can better be utilized.
Finally, if the above do not help, I would consider splitting your query some. The GROUP_CONCACT inline select for the TAGS might be a bit of a killer for you. You might want to have all the distinct elements first for the grouping per client, THEN get those details.... Something like
select
PQ.*,
group_concat(...) tags
from
( the entire primary part of the query ) as PQ
Left join yourGroupConcatTableBasis on key columns
I'm using a query which generally executes in under a second, but sometimes takes between 10-40 seconds to finish. I'm actually not totally clear on how the subquery works, I just know that it works, in that it gives me 15 rows for each faverprofileid.
I'm logging slow queries and it's telling me 5823244 rows were examined, which is odd because there aren't anywhere close to that many rows in any of the tables involved (the favorites table has the most at 50,000 rows).
Can anyone offer me some pointers? Is it an issue with the subquery and needing to use filesort?
EDIT: Running explain shows that the users table is not using an index (even though id is the primary key). Under extra it says: Using temporary; Using filesort.
SELECT F.id,F.created,U.username,U.fullname,U.id,I.*
FROM favorites AS F
INNER JOIN users AS U ON F.faver_profile_id = U.id
INNER JOIN items AS I ON F.notice_id = I.id
WHERE faver_profile_id IN (360,379,95,315,278,1)
AND F.removed = 0
AND I.removed = 0
AND F.collection_id is null
AND I.nudity = 0
AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM favorites WHERE faver_profile_id = F.faver_profile_id
AND created > F.created AND removed = 0 AND collection_id is null) < 15
ORDER BY F.faver_profile_id, F.created DESC;
The number of rows examined represents is large because many rows have been examined more than once. You are getting this because of an incorrectly optimized query plan which results in table scans when index lookups should have been performed. In this case the number of rows examined is exponential, i.e. of an order of magnitude comparable to the product of the total number of rows in more than one table.
Make sure that you have run ANALYZE TABLE on your three tables.
Read on how to avoid table scans, and identify then create any missing indexes
Rerun ANALYZE and re-explain your queries
the number of examined rows must drop dramatically
if not, post the full explain plan
use query hints to force the use of indices (to see the index names for a table, use SHOW INDEX):
SELECT
F.id,F.created,U.username,U.fullname,U.id,I.*
FROM favorites AS F FORCE INDEX (faver_profile_id_key)
INNER JOIN users AS U FORCE INDEX FOR JOIN (PRIMARY) ON F.faver_profile_id = U.id
INNER JOIN items AS I FORCE INDEX FOR JOIN (PRIMARY) ON F.notice_id = I.id
WHERE faver_profile_id IN (360,379,95,315,278,1)
AND F.removed = 0
AND I.removed = 0
AND F.collection_id is null
AND I.nudity = 0
AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM favorites FORCE INDEX (faver_profile_id_key) WHERE faver_profile_id = F.faver_profile_id
AND created > F.created AND removed = 0 AND collection_id is null) < 15
ORDER BY F.faver_profile_id, F.created DESC;
You may also change your query to use GROUP BY faver_profile_id/HAVING count > 15 instead of the nested SELECT COUNT(*) subquery, as suggested by vartec. The performance of both your original and vartec's query should be comparable if both are properly optimized e.g. using hints (your query would use nested index lookups, whereas vartec's query would use a hash-based strategy.)
I think with GROUP BY and HAVING it should be faster.
Is that what you want?
SELECT F.id,F.created,U.username,U.fullname,U.id, I.field1, I.field2, count(*) as CNT
FROM favorites AS F
INNER JOIN users AS U ON F.faver_profile_id = U.id
INNER JOIN items AS I ON F.notice_id = I.id
WHERE faver_profile_id IN (360,379,95,315,278,1)
AND F.removed = 0
AND I.removed = 0
AND F.collection_id is null
AND I.nudity = 0
GROUP BY F.id,F.created,U.username,U.fullname,U.id,I.field1, I.field2
HAVING CNT < 15
ORDER BY F.faver_profile_id, F.created DESC;
Don't know which fields from items you need, so I've put placeholders.
I suggest you use Mysql Explain Query to see how your mysql server handles the query. My bet is your indexes aren't optimal, but explain should do much better than my bet.
You could do a loop on each id and use limit instead of the count(*) subquery:
foreach $id in [123,456,789]:
SELECT
F.id,
F.created,
U.username,
U.fullname,
U.id,
I.*
FROM
favorites AS F INNER JOIN
users AS U ON F.faver_profile_id = U.id INNER JOIN
items AS I ON F.notice_id = I.id
WHERE
F.faver_profile_id = {$id} AND
I.removed = 0 AND
I.nudity = 0 AND
F.removed = 0 AND
F.collection_id is null
ORDER BY
F.faver_profile_id,
F.created DESC
LIMIT
15;
I'll suppose the result of that query is intented to be shown as a paged list. In that case, perhaps you could consider to do a simpler "unjoined query" and do a second query for each row to read only the 15, 20 or 30 elements shown. Was not a JOIN a heavy operation? This would simplify the query and It wouldn't become slower when the joined tables grow.
Tell me if I'm wrong, please.