I have a query that looks like this:
select `adverts`.*
from `adverts`
inner join `advert_category` on `advert_category`.`advert_id` = `adverts`.`id`
inner join `advert_location` on `adverts`.`id` = `advert_location`.`advert_id`
where `advert_location`.`location_id` = ?
and `advert_category`.`category_id` = ?
order by `updated_at` desc
The problem here is I have a huge database and this response is absolutely ravaging my database.
What I really need is to do the first join, and then do there where clause. This will whittle down my response from like 100k queries to less than 10k, then I want to do the other join, in order to whittle down the responses again so I can get the advert_location on the category items.
Doing it as is just isn't viable.
So, how do I go about using a join and a where condition, and then after getting that response doing a further join with a where condition?
Thanks
This is your query, written a bit simpler so I can read it:
select a.*
from adverts a inner join
advert_category ac
on ac.advert_id = a.id inner join
advert_location al
on al.advert_id = a.id
where al.location_id = ? and
ac.category_id = ?
order by a.updated_at desc;
I am speculating that advert_category and advert_locations have multiple rows per advert. In that case, you are getting a Cartesian product for each advert.
A better way to write the query uses exists:
select a.*
from adverts a
where exists (select 1
from advert_location al
where al.advert_id = a.id and al.location_id = ?
) and
exists (select 1
from advert_category ac
where ac.advert_id = a.id and ac.category_id = ?
)
order by a.updated_at desc;
For this version, you want indexes on advert_location(advert_id, location_id), advert_category(advert_id, category_id), and probably advert(updated_at, id).
You can write the 1st join in a Derived Table including a WHERE-condition and then do the 2nd join (but a decent optimizer might resolve the Derived Table again and do what he thinks is best based on statistics):
select adverts.*
from
(
select `adverts`.*
from `adverts`
inner join `advert_category`
on `advert_category`.`advert_id` =`adverts`.`id`
where `advert_category`.`category_id` = ?
) as adverts
inner join `advert_location`
on `adverts`.`id` = `advert_location`.`advert_id`
where `advert_location`.`location_id` = ?
order by `updated_at` desc
MySQL will reorder inner joins for you during optimization, regardless of how you wrote them in your query. Inner join is the same in either direction (in algebra this is called commutative), so this is safe to do.
You can see the result of join reordering if you use EXPLAIN on your query.
If you don't like the order MySQL chose for your joins, you can override it with this kind of syntax:
from `adverts`
straight_join `advert_category` ...
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/join.html says:
STRAIGHT_JOIN is similar to JOIN, except that the left table is always read before the right table. This can be used for those (few) cases for which the join optimizer processes the tables in a suboptimal order.
Once the optimizer has decided on the join order, it always does one join at a time, in that order. This is called the nested join method.
There isn't really any way to "do the join then do the where clause". Conditions are combined together when looking up rows for joined tables. But this is a good thing, because you can then create a compound index that helps match rows based on both join conditions and where conditions.
PS: When asking query optimization question, you should include the EXPLAIN output, and also run SHOW CREATE TABLE <tablename> for each table, and include the result. Then we don't have to guess at the columns and indexes in your table.
Related
I have this query I need to optimize further since it requires too much cpu time and I can't seem to find any other way to write it more efficiently. Is there another way to write this without altering the tables?
SELECT category, b.fruit_name, u.name
, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b, Customers u
, Categories c
, (SELECT * FROM
(SELECT *
FROM Reviews
ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id
) a
GROUP BY fruit_id
) r
WHERE b.fruit_id = r.fruit_id
AND u.customer_id = r.customer_id
AND category = "Fruits";
This is your query re-written with explicit joins:
SELECT
category, b.fruit_name, u.name, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
JOIN
(
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT *
FROM Reviews
ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id
) a
GROUP BY fruit_id
) r on r.fruit_id = b.fruit_id
JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
CROSS JOIN Categories c
WHERE c.category = 'Fruits';
(I am guessing here that the category column belongs to the categories table.)
There are some parts that look suspicious:
Why do you cross join the Categories table, when you don't even display a column of the table?
What is ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id supposed to do? Sub query results are considered unordered sets, so an ORDER BY is superfluous and can be ignored by the DBMS. What do you want to achieve here?
SELECT * FROM [ revues ] GROUP BY fruit_id is invalid. If you group by fruit_id, what count_vote and what r.text_c do you expect to get for the ID? You don't tell the DBMS (which would be something like MAX(count_vote) and MIN(r.text_c)for instance. MySQL should through an error, but silently replacescount_vote, r.text_cbyANY_VALUE(count_vote), ANY_VALUE(r.text_c)` instead. This means you get arbitrarily picked values for a fruit.
The answer hence to your question is: Don't try to speed it up, but fix it instead. (Maybe you want to place a new request showing the query and explaining what it is supposed to do, so people can help you with that.)
Your Categories table seems not joined/related to the others this produce a catesia product between all the rows
If you want distinct resut don't use group by but distint so you can avoid an unnecessary subquery
and you dont' need an order by on a subquery
SELECT category
, b.fruit_name
, u.name
, r.count_vote
, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
INNER JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
INNER JOIN Categories c ON ?????? /Your Categories table seems not joined/related to the others /
INNER JOIN (
SELECT distinct fruit_id, count_vote, text_c, customer_id
FROM Reviews
) r ON b.fruit_id = r.fruit_id
WHERE category = "Fruits";
for better reading you should use explicit join syntax and avoid old join syntax based on comma separated tables name and where condition
The next time you want help optimizing a query, please include the table/index structure, an indication of the cardinality of the indexes and the EXPLAIN plan for the query.
There appears to be absolutely no reason for a single sub-query here, let alone 2. Using sub-queries mostly prevents the DBMS optimizer from doing its job. So your biggest win will come from eliminating these sub-queries.
The CROSS JOIN creates a deliberate cartesian join - its also unclear if any attributes from this table are actually required for the result, if it is there to produce multiples of the same row in the output, or just an error.
The attribute category in the last line of your query is not attributed to any of the tables (but I suspect it comes from the categories table).
Further, your code uses a GROUP BY clause with no aggregation function. This will produce non-deterministic results and is a bug. Assuming that you are not exploiting a side-effect of that, the query can be re-written as:
SELECT
category, b.fruit_name, u.name, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
JOIN Reviews r
ON r.fruit_id = b.fruit_id
JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
ORDER BY r.fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id;
Since there are no predicates other than joins in your query, there is no scope for further optimization beyond ensuring there are indexes on the join predicates.
As all too frequently, the biggest benefit may come from simply asking the question of why you need to retrieve every single row in the tables in a single query.
I've a query like below,
SELECT
c.testID,
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id=b.ID
INNER JOIN c ON b.r_ID=c.id
WHERE c.test IS NOT NULL;
Can this query be optimized further?, I want inner join between three tables to happen only if it meets the where clause.
Where clause works as filter on the data what appears after all JOINs,
whereas if you use same restriction to JOIN clause itself then it will be optimized in sense of avoiding filter after join. That is, join on filtered data instead.
SELECT c.testID,
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.ID
INNER JOIN c ON b.r_ID = c.id AND c.test IS NOT NULL;
Moreover, you must create an index for the column test in table c to speed up the query.
Also, learn EXPLAIN command to the queries for best results.
Try the following:
SELECT
c.testID
FROM c
INNER JOIN b ON c.test IS NOT NULL AND b.r_ID=c.testID
INNER JOIN a ON a.id=b.r_ID;
I changed the order of the joins and conditions so that the first statement to be evaluated is c.test IS NOT NULL
Disclaimer: You should use the explain command in order to see the execution.
I'm pretty sure that even the minor change I just did might have no difference due to the MySql optimizer that work on all queries.
See the MySQL Documentation: Optimizing Queries with EXPLAIN
Three queries Compared
Have a look at the following fiddle:
https://www.db-fiddle.com/f/fXsT8oMzJ1H31FwMHrxR3u/0
I ran three different queries and in the end, MySQL optimized and ran them the same way.
Three Queries:
EXPLAIN SELECT
c.testID
FROM c
INNER JOIN b ON c.test IS NOT NULL AND b.r_ID=c.testID
INNER JOIN a ON a.id=b.r_ID;
EXPLAIN SELECT c.testID
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.r_id
INNER JOIN c ON b.r_ID = c.testID AND c.test IS NOT NULL;
EXPLAIN SELECT
c.testID
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id=b.r_ID
INNER JOIN c ON b.r_ID=c.testID
WHERE c.test IS NOT NULL;
All tables should have a PRIMARY KEY. Assuming that id is the PRIMARY KEY for the tables that it is in, then you need these secondary keys for maximal performance:
c: INDEX(test, test_id, id) -- `test` must be first
b: INDEX(r_ID)
Both of those are useful and "covering".
Another thing to note: b and a is virtually unused in the query, so you may as well write the query this way:
SELECT c.testID,
FROM c
WHERE c.test IS NOT NULL;
At that point, all you need is INDEX(test, testID).
I suspect you "simplified" your query by leaving out some uses of a and b. Well, I simplified it from there, just as the Optimizer should have done. (However, elimination of tables is an optimization that it does not do; it figures that is something the user would have done.)
On the other hand, b and a are not totally useless. The JOIN verify that there are corresponding rows, possibly many such rows, in those tables. Again, I think you had some other purpose.
I am studying select queries for MySQL join functions.
I am slightly confused on the below query. I understand the below statement to join attributes from multiple tables with the ON clause, and then filter the results set with the WHERE clause.
Is this correct? What other functionality does this provide? Are there better alternatives?
The tables, attributes, and schema are not relevant to this question, specifically just the ON and WHERE interaction. Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide, appreciated.
SELECT DISTINCT Movies.title
FROM Rentals
INNER JOIN Customers
INNER JOIN Copies
INNER JOIN Movies ON Rentals.customerNum=Customers.customerNum
AND Rentals.barcode=Copies.barcode
AND Copies.movieNum=Movies.movieNum
WHERE Customers.givenName='Chad'
AND Customers.familyName='Black';
INNER JOIN (and the outer joins) are binary operators that should be followed by an ON clause. Your particular syntax works in MySQL, but will not work in any other database (because it is missing two ON clauses).
I would recommend writing the query as:
SELECT DISTINCT m.title
FROM Movies m JOIN
Copies co
ON co.movieNum = m.movieNum JOIN
Rentals r
ON r.barcode = co.barcode JOIN
Customers c
ON c.customerNum = r.customerNum
WHERE c.givenName = 'Chad' AND
c.familyName = 'Black';
You should always put the JOIN conditions in the ON clause, with one ON per JOIN. This also introduces table aliases, which make the query easier to write and to read.
The WHERE clause has additional filtering conditions. These could also be in ON clauses, but I think the query reads better with them in the WHERE clause. You can glance at the query and see: "We are getting something from a bunch of tables for Chad Black".
Ordinary inner JOIN operations only generate result rows for table rows matching their ON condition. They suppress any rows that don't match. That means you can move the contents of ON clauses to your WHERE clause and get the same result set. Still, don't do that; JOINs are easier to understand when they have ON clauses.
If you use LEFT JOIN, a kind of outer join, you get rows from the first table you mention that don't match any rows in the second table according to the ON clause.
SELECT a.name, b.name
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON a.a_id = b.a_id
gives you are result set containing all rows of a with NULL values in b.name indicating that the ON condition did not match.
I have the performance problem with query that have order by and group by. I have checked similar problems on SO but I did not find the solution to this:(
I have something like this in my db schema:
pattern has many pattern_file belongs to project_template which belongs to project
Now I want to get projects filtered by some data(additional tables that I join) and want to get the result ordered for example by projects.priority and grouped by patterns.id. I have tried many things and to get the desired result I've figured out this query:
SELECT DISTINCT `projects`.* FROM `projects`
INNER JOIN `project_templates` ON `project_templates`.`project_id` = `projects`.`id`
INNER JOIN `pattern_files` ON `pattern_files`.`id` = `project_templates`.`pattern_file_id`
INNER JOIN `patterns` ON `patterns`.`id` = `pattern_files`.`pattern_id`
...[ truncated ]
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT projects.id FROM `projects` INNER JOIN `project_templates` ON `project_templates`.`project_id` = `projects`.`id`
INNER JOIN `pattern_files` ON `pattern_files`.`id` = `project_templates`.`pattern_file_id`
INNER JOIN `patterns` ON `patterns`.`id` = `pattern_files`.`pattern_id`
...[ truncated ]
WHERE [here my conditions] ORDER BY [here my order]) P
ON P.id = projects.id
WHERE [here my conditions]
GROUP BY patterns.id
ORDER BY [here my order]
From my research I have to INNER JOIN with subquery to conquer the problem "ORDER BY before GROUPing BY" => then I have put the same conditions on the outer query for performance purpose. The order by I had to use again in the outer query too, otherwise the result will be sorted by default.
Now there is real performance problem as I have about 6k projects and when I run this query without any conditions it takes about 15s :/ When I narrow the result by specify the conditions the time drastically dropped down. I've found somewhere that the subquery is run for every outer query row result which could be true when you watch at the execution time :/
Could you please give some advice how I can optimize the query? I do not work much with sql so maybe I do it from the wrong side from the very beginning?
P.S. I have tried WHERE projects.id IN (Select project.id FROM projects ....) and that discarded the performance issue but also discarded the ORDER BY before GROUPing BY
EDIT.
I want to retrieve list of projects, but I want also to filter it and order, and finally I want to get patterns.id unique(that is why I use the group by).
order by in your inner query (p) doesn't make sense (any inner sort will only
have an arbitrary effect).
#Solarflare Unfortunately it does. group by will take first row from grouped result. It preserve the order for join. Well, I believe that it is specific to MySql. Furthermore to keep the order from subquery I could use ORDER BY NULL in outer query :-)
Also, select projects.* ... group by pattern.id is fishy (although MySQL, in contrast to every other dbms, allows you to do this)
so we can assume I retrieve only projects.id, but from docs:
MySQL extends the use of GROUP BY to permit selecting fields that are not mentioned in the GROUP BY clause
I am doing a sub-query join to another table as I wanted to be able to sort the results I got back with it, I only need the first row but I need them ordered in a certain way so I would get the lowest id.
I tried adding LIMIT 1 to this but then the full query returned 0 results; so now it has no limit and in the EXPLAIN I have two rows showing they are using the full 10k+ rows of the auction_media table.
I wrote it this way to avoid having to query the auction_media table for each row separately, but now I'm thinking that this way isn't that great if it has to use the whole auction_media table?
Which way is better? The way I have it or querying the auction_media table separately? ...or is there a better way!?
Here is the code:
SELECT
a.auction_id,
a.name,
media.media_url
FROM
auctions AS a
LEFT JOIN users AS u ON u.user_id=a.owner_id
INNER JOIN ( SELECT media_id,media_url,auction_id
FROM auction_media
WHERE media_type=1
AND upload_in_progress=0
ORDER BY media_id ASC
) AS media
ON a.auction_id=media.auction_id
WHERE a.hpfeat=1
AND a.active=1
AND a.approved=1
AND a.closed=0
AND a.creation_in_progress=0
AND a.deleted=0
AND (a.list_in='auction' OR u.shop_active='1')
GROUP BY a.auction_id;
Edit: Through my testing, using the above query seems like it would be the much faster method overall; however I worry if that will still be the case when the auction_media table grows to like 1M rows or something.
edit: As stated in the comments - DISTINCT is not required because the auctions table can only be associated with (at most) one user table row and one row in the inner query.
You may want to try this. The outer query's GROUP BY is replaced with DISTINCT since you don't have any aggregate function. The inner query, was replaced by a query to find the smallest media_id per auction_id, then JOINed back to get the media_url. (Since I didn't know if the media_id and auction_id were a composite unique key, I used the same WHERE clause to help eliminate potential duplicates.)
SELECT
a.auction_id,
a.name,
auction_media.media_url
FROM auctions AS a
LEFT JOIN users AS u
ON u.user_id=a.owner_id
INNER JOIN (SELECT auction_id, MIN(media_id) AS media_id
FROM auction_media
WHERE media_type=1
AND upload_in_progress=0
GROUP BY auction_id) AS media
ON a.auction_id=media.auction_id
INNER JOIN auction_media
ON auction_media.media_id = media.media_id
AND auction_media.auction_id = media.auction_id
AND auction_media.media_type=1
AND auction_media.upload_in_progress=0
WHERE a.hpfeat=1
AND a.active=1
AND a.approved=1
AND a.closed=0
AND a.creation_in_progress=0
AND a.deleted=0
AND (a.list_in='auction' OR u.shop_active='1');