I have been reading lots of great answers to different problems over the time on this site but this is the first time I am posting. So in advance thanks for your help.
Here is my question:
I have a MySQL table that tracks visits to different websites we have. This is the table structure:
create table navigation_base (
uid int(11) NOT NULL,
date datetime not null,
dia date not null,
ip int(4) unsigned not null default 0,
session_id int unsigned not null,
cliente smallint unsigned not null default 0,
campaign mediumint unsigned not null default 0,
trackcookie int unsigned not null,
adgroup int unsigned not null default 0,
PRIMARY KEY (uid)
) ENGINE=MyISAM;
This table has aprox. 70 million rows (an average of 110,000 per day).
On that table we have created indexes with following commands:
alter table navigation_base add index dia_cliente_campaign_ip (dia,cliente,campaign,ip);
alter table navigation_base add index dia_cliente_campaign_ip_session (dia,cliente,campaign,ip,session_id);
alter table navigation_base add index dia_cliente_campaign_ip_session_trackcookie (dia,cliente,campaign,ip,session_id,trackcookie);
We then use this table to get visitor statistics grouped by clients, days and campaigns with the following query:
select
dia,
navigation_base.campaign,
navigation_base.cliente,
count(distinct ip) as visitas,
count(ip) as paginas_vistas,
count(distinct session_id) as sesiones,
count(distinct trackcookie) as cookies
from navigation_base where
(dia between '2017-01-01' and '2017-01-31')
group by dia,cliente,campaign order by NULL
Even having those indexes created, the response times for periods of one month are relatively slow; On our server about 3 seconds.
Are there some ways of speeding up these queries?
Thanks in advance.
With this much of data, indexing alone may not be all that helpful since there is a lot of similarity in the data. Besides you have GROUP BY and SORT along with aggregation. All these things combined makes optimization very hard. partitioning is the way forward, because:
Some queries can be greatly optimized in virtue of the fact that data
satisfying a given WHERE clause can be stored only on one or more
partitions, which automatically excludes any remaining partitions from
the search. Because partitions can be altered after a partitioned
table has been created, you can reorganize your data to enhance
frequent queries that may not have been often used when the
partitioning scheme was first set up.
And if this doesn't work for you, it's still possible to
In addition, MySQL 5.7 supports explicit partition selection for
queries. For example, SELECT * FROM t PARTITION (p0,p1) WHERE c < 5
selects only those rows in partitions p0 and p1 that match the WHERE
condition.
ALTER TABLE navigation_base
PARTITION BY RANGE( TO_DAYS(dia)) (
PARTITION p0 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2018-12-31')),
PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2017-12-31')),
PARTITION p2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2016-12-31')),
PARTITION p3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2015-12-31')),
..
PARTITION p10 VALUES LESS THAN MAXVALUE));
Use bigger or smaller partitions as you see fit.
The most important factor to keep in mind is that mysql can only use one index per table. So choose your index wisely.
If you only do COUNT(DISTINCT ...) at the granularity of a day, then build and incrementally maintain a summary table. It would augmented each night by a query nearly identical to your SELECT, but only fetching yesterday's data.
Then use this Summary Table for the monthly "report".
More on Summary Tables
Related
I have a huge table that stores many tracked events, such as a user click.
The table is already in the 10s of millions, and it's growing larger every day.
The queries are starting to get slower when I try to fetch events from a large timeframe, and after reading quite a bit on the subject I understand that partitioning the table may boost the performance.
What I want to do is partition the table on a per month basis.
I have only found guides that show how to partition manually each month, is there a way to just tell MySQL to partition by month and it will do that automatically?
If not, what is the command to do it manually considering my partitioned by column is a datetime?
As explained by the manual: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/partitioning-overview.html
This is easily possible by hash partitioning of the month output.
CREATE TABLE ti (id INT, amount DECIMAL(7,2), tr_date DATE)
ENGINE=INNODB
PARTITION BY HASH( MONTH(tr_date) )
PARTITIONS 6;
Do note that this only partitions by month and not by year, also there are only 6 partitions (so 6 months) in this example.
And for partitioning an existing table (manual: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/alter-table-partition-operations.html):
ALTER TABLE ti
PARTITION BY HASH( MONTH(tr_date) )
PARTITIONS 6;
Querying can be done both from the entire table:
SELECT * from ti;
Or from specific partitions:
SELECT * from ti PARTITION (HASH(MONTH(some_date)));
CREATE TABLE `mytable` (
`post_id` int DEFAULT NULL,
`viewid` int DEFAULT NULL,
`user_id` int DEFAULT NULL,
`post_Date` datetime DEFAULT NULL
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb4 COLLATE=utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci
PARTITION BY RANGE (extract(year_month from `post_Date`))
(PARTITION P0 VALUES LESS THAN (202012) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION P1 VALUES LESS THAN (202104) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION P2 VALUES LESS THAN (202108) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION P3 VALUES LESS THAN (202112) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION P4 VALUES LESS THAN MAXVALUE ENGINE = InnoDB)
Be aware of the "lazy" effect doing it partitioning by hash:
As docs says:
You should also keep in mind that this expression is evaluated each time a row is inserted or updated (or possibly deleted); this means that very complex expressions may give rise to performance issues, particularly when performing operations (such as batch inserts) that affect a great many rows at one time.
The most efficient hashing function is one which operates upon a single table column and whose value increases or decreases consistently with the column value, as this allows for “pruning” on ranges of partitions. That is, the more closely that the expression varies with the value of the column on which it is based, the more efficiently MySQL can use the expression for hash partitioning.
For example, where date_col is a column of type DATE, then the expression TO_DAYS(date_col) is said to vary directly with the value of date_col, because for every change in the value of date_col, the value of the expression changes in a consistent manner. The variance of the expression YEAR(date_col) with respect to date_col is not quite as direct as that of TO_DAYS(date_col), because not every possible change in date_col produces an equivalent change in YEAR(date_col).
HASHing by month with 6 partitions means that two months a year will land in the same partition. What good is that?
Don't bother partitioning, index the table.
Assuming these are the only two queries you use:
SELECT * from ti;
SELECT * from ti PARTITION (HASH(MONTH(some_date)));
then start the PRIMARY KEY with the_date.
The first query simply reads the entire table; no change between partitioned and not.
The second query, assuming you want a single month, not all the months that map into the same partition, would need to be
SELECT * FROM ti WHERE the_date >= '2019-03-01'
AND the_date < '2019-03-01' + INTERVAL 1 MONTH;
If you have other queries, let's see them.
(I have not found any performance justification for ever using PARTITION BY HASH.)
example i have some gps devices that send info to my database every seconds
so 1 device create 1 row in mysql database with these columns (8)
id=12341 date=22.02.2018 time=22:40
langitude=22.236558789 longitude=78.9654582 deviceID=24 name=device-name someinfo=asdadadasd
so for 1 minute it create 60 rows , for 24 hours it create 864000 rows
and for 1 month(31days) 2678400 ROWS
so 1 device is creating 2.6 million rows per month in my db table ( records are deleted every month.)
so if there are more devices will be 2.6 Million * number of devices
so my questions are like this:
Question 1: if i make a search like this from php ( just for current day and for 1 device)
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE date='22.02.2018' AND deviceID= '24'
max possible results will be 86400 rows
will it overload my server too much
Question 2: limit with 5 hours (18000 rows) will that be problem for database or will it load server like first example or less
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE date='22.02.2018' AND deviceID= '24' LIMIT 18000
Question 3: if i show just 1 result from db will it overload server
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE date='22.02.2018' AND deviceID= '24' LIMIT 1
does it mean that if i have millions of rows and 1000rows will load server same if i show just 1 result
Millions of rows is not a problem, this is what SQL databases are designed to handle, if you have a well designed schema and good indexes.
Use proper types
Instead of storing your dates and times as separate strings, store them either as a single datetime or separate date and time types. See indexing below for more about which one to use. This is both more compact, allows indexing, faster sorting, and it makes available date and time functions without having to do conversions.
Similarly, be sure to use the appropriate numeric type for latitude, and longitude. You'll probably want to use numeric to ensure precision.
Since you're going to be storing billions of rows, be sure to use a bigint for your primary key. A regular int can only go up to about 2 billion.
Move repeated data into another table.
Instead of storing information about the device in every row, store that in a separate table. Then only store the device's ID in your log. This will cut down on your storage size, and eliminate mistakes due to data duplication. Be sure to declare the device ID as a foreign key, this will provide referential integrity and an index.
Add indexes
Indexes are what allows a database to search through millions or billions of rows very, very efficiently. Be sure there are indexes on the rows you use frequently, such as your timestamp.
A lack of indexes on date and deviceID is likely why your queries are so slow. Without an index, MySQL has to look at every row in the database known as a full table scan. This is why your queries are so slow, you're lacking indexes.
You can discover whether your queries are using indexes with explain.
datetime or time + date?
Normally it's best to store your date and time in a single column, conventionally called created_at. Then you can use date to get just the date part like so.
select *
from gps_logs
where date(created_at) = '2018-07-14'
There's a problem. The problem is how indexes work... or don't. Because of the function call, where date(created_at) = '2018-07-14' will not use an index. MySQL will run date(created_at) on every single row. This means a performance killing full table scan.
You can work around this by working with just the datetime column. This will use an index and be efficient.
select *
from gps_logs
where '2018-07-14 00:00:00' <= created_at and created_at < '2018-07-15 00:00:00'
Or you can split your single datetime column into date and time columns, but this introduces new problems. Querying ranges which cross a day boundary becomes difficult. Like maybe you want a day in a different time zone. It's easy with a single column.
select *
from gps_logs
where '2018-07-12 10:00:00' <= created_at and created_at < '2018-07-13 10:00:00'
But it's more involved with a separate date and time.
select *
from gps_logs
where (created_date = '2018-07-12' and created_time >= '10:00:00')
or (created_date = '2018-07-13' and created_time < '10:00:00');
Or you can switch to a database with partial indexes like Postgresql. A partial index allows you to index only part of a value, or the result of a function. And Postgresql does a lot of things better than MySQL. This is what I recommend.
Do as much work in SQL as possible.
For example, if you want to know how many log entries there are per device per day, rather than pulling all the rows out and calculating them yourself, you'd use group by to group them by device and day.
select gps_device_id, count(id) as num_entries, created_at::date as day
from gps_logs
group by gps_device_id, day;
gps_device_id | num_entries | day
---------------+-------------+------------
1 | 29310 | 2018-07-12
2 | 23923 | 2018-07-11
2 | 23988 | 2018-07-12
With this much data, you will want to rely heavily on group by and the associated aggregate functions like sum, count, max, min and so on.
Avoid select *
If you must retrieve 86400 rows, the cost of simply fetching all that data from the database can be costly. You can speed this up significantly by only fetching the columns you need. This means using select only, the, specific, columns, you, need rather than select *.
Putting it all together.
In PostgreSQL
Your schema in PostgreSQL should look something like this.
create table gps_devices (
id serial primary key,
name text not null
-- any other columns about the devices
);
create table gps_logs (
id bigserial primary key,
gps_device_id int references gps_devices(id),
created_at timestamp not null default current_timestamp,
latitude numeric(12,9) not null,
longitude numeric(12,9) not null
);
create index timestamp_and_device on gps_logs(created_at, gps_device_id);
create index date_and_device on gps_logs((created_at::date), gps_device_id);
A query can generally only use one index per table. Since you'll be searching on the timestamp and device ID together a lot timestamp_and_device combines indexing both the timestamp and device ID.
date_and_device is the same thing, but it's a partial index on just the date part of the timestamp. This will make where created_at::date = '2018-07-12' and gps_device_id = 42 very efficient.
In MySQL
create table gps_devices (
id int primary key auto_increment,
name text not null
-- any other columns about the devices
);
create table gps_logs (
id bigint primary key auto_increment,
gps_device_id int references gps_devices(id),
foreign key (gps_device_id) references gps_devices(id),
created_at timestamp not null default current_timestamp,
latitude numeric(12,9) not null,
longitude numeric(12,9) not null
);
create index timestamp_and_device on gps_logs(created_at, gps_device_id);
Very similar, but no partial index. So you'll either need to always use a bare created_at in your where clauses, or switch to separate date and time types.
Just read you question, for me the Answer is
Just create a separate table for Latitude and longitude and make your ID Foreign key and save it their.
Without knowing the exact queries you want to run I can just guess the best structure. Having said that, you should aim for the optimal types that use the minimum number of bytes per row. This should make your queries faster.
For example, you could use the structure below:
create table device (
id int primary key not null,
name varchar(20),
someinfo varchar(100)
);
create table location (
device_id int not null,
recorded_at timestamp not null,
latitude double not null, -- instead of varchar; maybe float?
longitude double not null, -- instead of varchar; maybe float?
foreign key (device_id) references device (id)
);
create index ix_loc_dev on location (device_id, recorded_at);
If you include the exact queries (naming the columns) we can create better indexes for them.
Since probably your query selectivity is bad, your queries may run Full Table Scans. For this case I took it a step further I used the smallest possible data types for the columns, so it will be faster:
create table location (
device_id tinyint not null,
recorded_at timestamp not null,
latitude float not null,
longitude float not null,
foreign key (device_id) references device (id)
);
Can't really think of anything smaller than this.
The best what I can recommend to you is to use time-series database for storing and accessing time-series data. You can host any kind of time-series database engine locally, just put a little bit more resources into development of it's access methods or use any specialized databases for telematics data like this.
I have select query on a partitioned table with 123 million records which is taking more then 10 minutes to fetch data. My query looks like 'select * from tableName where column1='1.1.1.1' order by timestamp desc';
Table is already indexed on column1.
Any help appreciated.
(From comments)
CREATE TABLE mytable (
column1 varchar(256) NOT NULL,
column2 varchar(100) NOT NULL,
column3 smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL,
column4 smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL,
timestamp bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
KEY mytable_idx (column2,timestamp,column3,column4),
KEY ip_addr_index (column1),
KEY ts_idx (timestamp)
) /*!50100 PARTITION BY RANGE ((TIMESTAMP))
(PARTITION p1498800000 VALUES LESS THAN (1498800000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1500000000 VALUES LESS THAN (1500000000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1501200000 VALUES LESS THAN (1501200000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1502400000 VALUES LESS THAN (1502400000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1503600000 VALUES LESS THAN (1503600000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1504800000 VALUES LESS THAN (1504800000) ENGINE = InnoDB,
PARTITION p1506000000 VALUES LESS THAN (1506000000) ENGINE = InnoDB
) */
For this query:
select *
from tableName
where column1 = '1.1.1.1'
order by timestamp desc;
You want an index on (column1, timestamp desc). Note: The desc may be ignored in earlier versions of MySQL.
PARTITIONing does not intrinsically provide speed. Please provide SHOW CREATE TABLE so we can discuss whether partitioning actually hurts performance in your case.
INDEX(column1, timestamp) -- In this order
is optimal whether the table is partitioned or not. In particular, that index will work just as good for non-partitioned. (Gordon's comment about DESC has no impact on performance, whether old or new version.)
With 123 million rows, you should keep an eye on datatypes. If you have
column1 VARCHAR(15) CHARACTER SET utf8
then that ipv4_address can be improved from up-to-17 bytes to exactly 4:
BINARY(4)
with suitable conversions on INSERT and SELECT. Making that change would also allow for CDR and other range tests, which are not possible with VARCHAR. Will you need to handle IPv6? I discuss that here.
How many rows match 1.1.1.1? Are there any TEXT columns? What is the PRIMARY KEY? Which Engine? Each of those questions may have an impact on the "10 minutes".
It is important to understand when a "composite" index is better than a single-column index. More discussion: http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql
after CREATE
Replace this
KEY ip_addr_index (column1)
with
KEY ip_addr_index (column1, timestamp)
Don't create more than one future partition before it is needed. Always have a LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) partition just in case.
IPv4 can live with VARCHAR(15); IPv6 fits in (39) or `BINARY(16) after packing.
For that one query, 7 queries must be done (one per partition); the results put together, then sorted. Without partitioning, it becomes one query, no sort (since the index is already sorted). So, (I believe) that partitioning slows that query down.
When discussing performance in 123M rows, I need to see all the main queries in one sitting in order to advise. Optimizing for one query is all to likely to de-optimize for some other.
There seems to be no reason to use BIGINT for TIMESTAMP. INT UNSIGNED would save 4 bytes per row of data, plus more for the indexes. Perhaps a total savings of 2GB of disk space. That translates into some speedup for some queries.
If timestamp is always used in a "range", then this index (column2,timestamp,column3,column4) is probably in an inefficient order. Please provide the query that benefits from this index so I can further elaborate.
I am quite new in the subject of partitions and the necessity has arisen due to the great accumulation of data.
Well, basically it is an access control system, there are currently 20 departments and each department has approximately 100 users. The system records the date and time of the entries and exits (from_date / to_date) My intention is to divide by departments and then for a month throughout the year.
Plan:
Partition the table by [ dep_id and date (from_date and to_date) ]
Problem
I have the following table.
CREATE TABLE `employee` (
`employee_id` smallint(5) NOT NULL,
`dep_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`from_date` int(11) NOT NULL,
`to_date` int(11) NOT NULL,
KEY `index1` (`employee_id`,`from_date`,`to_date`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
I have the dates (from_date and to_date) in UNIX_TIMESTAMP format (INT 11)
I am looking to divide it during all the months of the year.
it's possible?
Mysql - 5.7
It is possible to use range partitioning on an integer column.
Assuming my_int_col is unix-style integer seconds since 1970-01-01
we could achieve monthly partitions with something like this:
PARTITION BY RANGE (my_int_col)
( PARTITION p20180101 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-01-01 00:00') )
, PARTITION p20180201 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-02-01 00:00') )
, PARTITION p20180301 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-03-01 00:00') )
, PARTITION p20180401 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-04-01 00:00') )
, PARTITION p20180501 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-05-01 00:00') )
, PARTITION p20180601 VALUES LESS THAN ( UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2018-06-01 00:00') )
Be careful of the time_zone setting of the session. Those date literals will be interpreted as values in the current time_zone... e.g. if you want those to be UTC datetime, time_zone should be +00:00.
Or, replace the UNIX_TIMESTAMP() expression with a literal integer value... that's what MySQL is going to do with the UNIX_TIMESTAMP() expressions.
Obviously, you can name the partitions whatever you want.
Note: applying partitioning to an existing table will require MySQL to create an entire copy of the table, holding an exclusive lock on the original table while the operation completes. So you will need sufficient storage (disk) space, and a window of time for the operation to complete.
It's possible to create a new table that is partitioned, and then copy the older data a chunk at a time. But make the chunks reasonably sized, to avoid ballooning the ibdata1 with large transactions. And then do some RENAME TABLE statements to move the old table out, and move the new table in.
Some caveats to note with partitioned tables: there's no foreign key support, and there's no guarantee that partitioned table will give better DML performance than a non-partitioned table.
Strategic indexes and carefully planned queries is the key to performance with "very large" tables. And this is true with partitioned tables as well.
Partitioning isn't a magic bullet for performance problems that some novices would like it to be.
As far as creating subpartitions within partitions, I wouldn't recommend it.
I'd like to ask a question about how to improve performance in a big MySQL table using innodb engine:
There's currently a table in my database with around 200 million rows. This table periodically stores the data collected by different sensors. The structure of the table is as follows:
CREATE TABLE sns_value (
value_id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
sensor_id int(11) NOT NULL,
type_id int(11) NOT NULL,
date timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
value int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (value_id),
KEY idx_sensor id (sensor_id),
KEY idx_date (date),
KEY idx_type_id (type_id) );
At first, I thought of partitioning the table in months, but due to the steady addition of new sensors it would reach the current size in about a month.
Another solution that I came up with was partitioning the table by sensors. However, due to the limit of 1024 partitions of MySQL that wasn't an option.
I believe that the right solution would be using a table with the same structure for each of the sensors:
sns_value_XXXXX
This way there would be more than 1.000 tables with an estimated size of 30 million rows per year. These tables could, at the same time, be partitioned in months for fastest access to data.
What problems would result from this solution? Is there a more normalized solution?
Editing with additional information
I consider the table to be big in relation to my server:
Cloud 2xCPU and 8GB Memory
LAMP (CentOS 6.5 and MySQL 5.1.73)
Each sensor may have more than one variable types (CO, CO2, etc.).
I mainly have two slow queries:
1) Daily summary for each sensor and type (avg, max, min):
SELECT round(avg(value)) as mean, min(value) as min, max(value) as max, type_id
FROM sns_value
WHERE sensor_id=1 AND date BETWEEN '2014-10-29 00:00:00' AND '2014-10-29 12:00:00'
GROUP BY type_id limit 2000;
This takes more than 5 min.
2) Vertical to Horizontal view and export:
SELECT sns_value.date AS date,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 101)))))) AS one,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 141)))))) AS two,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 151)))))) AS three
FROM sns_value
WHERE sns_value.sensor_id=1 AND sns_value.date BETWEEN '2014-10-28 12:28:29' AND '2014-10-29 12:28:29'
GROUP BY sns_value.sensor_id,sns_value.date LIMIT 4500;
This also takes more than 5 min.
Other considerations
Timestamps may be repeated due to inserts characteristics.
Periodic inserts must coexist with selects.
No updates nor deletes are performed on the table.
Suppositions made to the "one table for each sensor" approach
Tables for each sensor would be much smaller so access would be faster.
Selects will be performed only on one table for each sensor.
Selects mixing data from different sensors are not time-critical.
Update 02/02/2015
We have created a new table for each year of data, which we have also partitioned in a daily basis. Each table has around 250 million rows with 365 partitions. The new index used is as Ollie suggested (sensor_id, date, type_id, value) but the query still takes between 30 seconds and 2 minutes. We do not use the first query (daily summary), just the second (vertical to horizontal view).
In order to be able to partition the table, the primary index had to be removed.
Are we missing something? Is there a way to improve the performance?
Many thanks!
Edited based on changes to the question
One table per sensor is, with respect, a very bad idea indeed. There are several reasons for that:
MySQL servers on ordinary operating systems have a hard time with thousands of tables. Most OSs can't handle that many simultaneous file accesses at once.
You'll have to create tables each time you add (or delete) sensors.
Queries that involve data from multiple sensors will be slow and convoluted.
My previous version of this answer suggested range partitioning by timestamp. But that won't work with your value_id primary key. However, with the queries you've shown and proper indexing of your table, partitioning probably won't be necessary.
(Avoid the column name date if you can: it's a reserved word and you'll have lots of trouble writing queries. Instead I suggest you use ts, meaning timestamp.)
Beware: int(11) values aren't aren't big enough for your value_id column. You're going to run out of ids. Use bigint(20) for that column.
You've mentioned two queries. Both these queries can be made quite efficient with appropriate compound indexes, even if you keep all your values in a single table. Here's the first one.
SELECT round(avg(value)) as mean, min(value) as min, max(value) as max,
type_id
FROM sns_value
WHERE sensor_id=1
AND date BETWEEN '2014-10-29 00:00:00' AND '2014-10-29 12:00:00'
GROUP BY type_id limit 2000;
For this query, you're first looking up sensor_id using a constant, then you're looking up a range of date values, then you're aggregating by type_id. Finally you're extracting the value column. Therefore, a so-called compound covering index on (sensor_id, date, type_id, value) will be able to satisfy your query directly with an index scan. This should be very fast for you--certainly faster than 5 minutes even with a large table.
In your second query, a similar indexing strategy will work.
SELECT sns_value.date AS date,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 101)))))) AS one,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 141)))))) AS two,
sum((sns_value.value * (1 - abs(sign((sns_value.type_id - 151)))))) AS three
FROM sns_value
WHERE sns_value.sensor_id=1
AND sns_value.date BETWEEN '2014-10-28 12:28:29' AND '2014-10-29 12:28:29'
GROUP BY sns_value.sensor_id,sns_value.date
LIMIT 4500;
Again, you start with a constant value of sensor_id and then use a date range. You then extract both type_id and value. That means the same four column index I mentioned should work for you.
CREATE TABLE sns_value (
value_id bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
sensor_id int(11) NOT NULL,
type_id int(11) NOT NULL,
ts timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
value int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (value_id),
INDEX query_opt (sensor_id, ts, type_id, value)
);
Creating separate table for a range of sensors would be an idea.
Do not use the auto_increment for a primary key, if you dont have to. Usually DB engine is clustering the data by its primary key.
Use composite key instead, depends from your usecase, the sequence of columns may be different.
EDIT: Also added the type into the PK. Considering the queries, i would do it like this. Choosing the field names is intentional, they should be descriptive and always consider the reserverd words.
CREATE TABLE snsXX_readings (
sensor_id int(11) NOT NULL,
reading int(11) NOT NULL,
reading_time timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
type_id int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (reading_time, sensor_id, type_id),
KEY idx date_idx (date),
KEY idx type_id (type_id)
);
Also, consider summarizing the readings or grouping them into a single field.
You can try get randomize summary data
I have similar table. table engine myisam(smallest table size), 10m record, no index on my table because useless(tested). Get all range for the all data. result:10sn this query.
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT sensor_id, value, date
FROM sns_value l
WHERE l.sensor_id= 123 AND
(l.date BETWEEN '2013-10-29 12:28:29' AND '2015-10-29 12:28:29')
ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 2000
) as tmp
ORDER BY tmp.date;
This query on first step get between dates and sorting randomize first 2k data, on the second step sort data. the query every time get 2k result for different data.