MySql Record Matching Criteria With Latest Date - mysql

I have a mySql table where all status changes are recorded. I want to be able to query the status of all items on a specific date, or the last date for all items. The table I have now is:
CREATE TABLE `tra_rel_sta` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`tra_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`sta_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`changed_on` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`changed_by` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`comments` text,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `tra_id` (`tra_id`),
KEY `rel` (`tra_id`,`sta_id`,`changed_on`),
KEY `sta_id` (`sta_id`),
KEY `changed_on` (`changed_on`),
KEY `tra_changed` (`tra_id`,`changed_on`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=51734 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
(I know I'm probably overdoing the indexes, but I haven't exactly figured out how to optimize indexes yet).
The query I'm using now, which works is:
SELECT rel.changed_on, rel.changed_by, rel.tra_id, sta.id AS sta_id, sta.status, sta.description, sta.onHold, sta.awaitingApproval, sta.approved, sta.complete, sta.locked
FROM (
SELECT tra_id, MAX(changed_on) AS lst
FROM tra_rel_sta
GROUP BY tra_id
) AS rec
LEFT JOIN tra_rel_sta AS rel ON rel.changed_on = rec.lst AND rel.tra_id = rec.tra_id
LEFT JOIN tra_status AS sta ON sta.id = rel.sta_id
If I want to use a specific date, I insert a WHERE statement in the sub-query.
This works, but it takes about 0.65 seconds to run in PHP with about 51,733 records in the table. This query is used as a sub query in several others when I need to know the last status of an object, and as a result, is slowing down many application.
I've tried to use a sub query in the WHERE statement as described in MySQL: how to select record with latest date before a certain date but it takes almost twice as long. I've tried using a JOIN statement as described in MySQL select of record with latest date but I'm getting about the same or just slightly slower results.
How can I optimize this query or fix my indexes to make this more effective?
Thanks!!
As requested, EXPLAIN of query:
id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra
---|-------------|-------------|--------|-----------------------------------|---------|---------|-------------------|-------|-------------
1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 49931 | NULL
1 | PRIMARY | rel | ref | tra_id,rel,changed_on,tra_changed | tra_id | 5 | rec.tra_id | 1 | Using where
1 | PRIMARY | sta | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | csinfo.rel.sta_id | 1 | NULL
2 | DERIVED | tra_rel_sta | index | tra_id,rel,tra_changed | tra_id | 5 | NULL | 49931 | NULL

Related

How to use correct indexes with a double inner join query?

I have a query with 2 INNER JOIN statements, and only fetching a few column, but it is very slow even though I have indexes on all required columns.
My query
SELECT
dysfonctionnement,
montant,
listRembArticles,
case when dys.reimputation is not null then dys.reimputation else dys.responsable end as responsable_final
FROM
db.commandes AS com
INNER JOIN db.dysfonctionnements AS dys ON com.id_commande = dys.id_commande
INNER JOIN db.pe AS pe ON com.code_pe = pe.pe_id
WHERE
com.prestataireLAD REGEXP '.*'
AND pe_nom REGEXP 'bordeaux|chambéry-annecy|grenoble|lyon|marseille|metz|montpellier|nancy|nice|nimes|rouen|strasbourg|toulon|toulouse|vitry|vitry bis 1|vitry bis 2|vlg'
AND com.date_livraison BETWEEN '2022-06-11 00:00:00'
AND '2022-07-08 00:00:00';
It takes around 20 seconds to compute and fetch 4123 rows.
The problem
In order to find what's wrong and why is it so slow, I've used the EXPLAIN statement, here is the output:
| id | select_type | table | partitions | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | filtered | Extra |
|----|-------------|-------|------------|--------|----------------------------|-------------|---------|------------------------|--------|----------|-------------|
| 1 | SIMPLE | dys | | ALL | id_commande,id_commande_2 | | | | 878588 | 100.00 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | com | | eq_ref | id_commande,date_livraison | id_commande | 110 | db.dys.id_commande | 1 | 7.14 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | pe | | ref | pe_id | pe_id | 5 | db.com.code_pe | 1 | 100.00 | Using where |
I can see that the dysfonctionnements JOIN is rigged, and doesn't use a key even though it could...
Table definitions
commandes (included relevant columns only)
CREATE TABLE `commandes` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`id_commande` varchar(36) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`date_commande` datetime NOT NULL,
`date_livraison` datetime NOT NULL,
`code_pe` int(11) NOT NULL,
`traitement_dysfonctionnement` tinyint(4) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `id_commande` (`id_commande`),
KEY `date_livraison` (`date_livraison`),
KEY `traitement_dysfonctionnement` (`traitement_dysfonctionnement`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
dysfonctionnements (again, relevant columns only)
CREATE TABLE `dysfonctionnements` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`id_commande` varchar(36) DEFAULT NULL,
`dysfonctionnement` varchar(150) DEFAULT NULL,
`responsable` varchar(50) DEFAULT NULL,
`reimputation` varchar(50) DEFAULT NULL,
`montant` float DEFAULT NULL,
`listRembArticles` text,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `id_commande` (`id_commande`,`dysfonctionnement`),
KEY `id_commande_2` (`id_commande`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
pe (again, relevant columns only)
CREATE TABLE `pe` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`pe_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`pe_nom` varchar(30) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `pe_nom` (`pe_nom`),
KEY `pe_id` (`pe_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Investigation
If I remove the db.pe table from the query and the WHERE clause on pe_nom, the query takes 1.7 seconds to fetch 7k rows, and with the EXPLAIN statement, I can see it is using keys as I expect it to do:
| id | select_type | table | partitions | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | filtered | Extra |
|----|-------------|-------|------------|-------|----------------------------|----------------|---------|------------------------|--------|----------|-----------------------------------------------|
| 1 | SIMPLE | com | | range | id_commande,date_livraison | date_livraison | 5 | | 389558 | 100.00 | Using index condition; Using where; Using MRR |
| 1 | SIMPLE | dys | | ref | id_commande,id_commande_2 | id_commande_2 | 111 | ooshop.com.id_commande | 1 | 100.00 | |
I'm open to any suggestions, I see no reason not to use the key when it does on a very similar query and it definitely makes it faster...
I had a similar experience when MySQL optimiser selected a joined table sequence far from optimal. At that time I used MySQL specific STRAIGHT_JOIN operator to overcome default optimiser behaviour. In your case I would try this:
SELECT
dysfonctionnement,
montant,
listRembArticles,
case when dys.reimputation is not null then dys.reimputation else dys.responsable end as responsable_final
FROM
db.commandes AS com
STRAIGHT_JOIN db.dysfonctionnements AS dys ON com.id_commande = dys.id_commande
INNER JOIN db.pe AS pe ON com.code_pe = pe.pe_id
Also, in your WHERE clause one of the REGEXP probably might be changed to IN operator, I assume it can use index.
Remove com.prestataireLAD REGEXP '.*'. The Optimizer probably won't realize that this has no impact on the resultset. If you are dynamically building the WHERE clause, then eliminate anything else you can.
id_commande_2 is redundant. In queries where it might be useful, the UNIQUE can take care of it.
These indexes might help:
com: INDEX(date_livraison, id_commande, code_pe)
pe: INDEX(pe_nom, pe_id)

MySQL report query optimization and timezone issues

I'm faced with a MySQL database which contains an events table with ~70 million rows which has foreign keys to other tables and is used to generate reports. Constructing a performant query to select (while counting/summing values) and grouping data per day from this table is proving challenging.
The database structure is as follows:
CREATE TABLE `client` (
`id` int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `idx_client_id_name` (`id`,`name`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=66 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3
CREATE TABLE `class` (
`id` int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`client_id` int DEFAULT NULL,
`duration` int DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `fk_client_id_idx` (`client_id`),
CONSTRAINT `fk_client_id` FOREIGN KEY (`client_id`) REFERENCES `client` (`id`) ON DELETE SET NULL ON UPDATE CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=2606 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3
CREATE TABLE `event` (
`id` int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`start_time` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`class_id` int DEFAULT NULL,
`venue_id` int DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `fk_class_id_idx` (`class_id`),
KEY `fk_venue_id_idx` (`venue_id`),
KEY `idx_1` (`venue_id`,`class_id`,`start_time`),
CONSTRAINT `fk_class_id` FOREIGN KEY (`class_id`) REFERENCES `class` (`id`) ON DELETE SET NULL ON UPDATE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT `fk_venue_id` FOREIGN KEY (`venue_id`) REFERENCES `venue` (`id`) ON DELETE SET NULL ON UPDATE CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=64093231 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3
CREATE TABLE `venue` (
`id` int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `idx_venue_id_name` (`id`,`name`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=29 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3
The query which is fine on an events table with a few thousand rows to demonstrate the desired outcome is as follows:
SELECT
CAST(event.start_time as date) as day,
class.name,
client.name,
venue.name,
COUNT(class.name) AS occurrences,
SUM(class.duration) AS duration
FROM
class,
client,
event,
venue
WHERE
event.venue_id = venue.id
AND event.class_id = class.id
AND class.client_id = client.id
GROUP BY day, class.name, client.name, venue.name
The database isn't indexed and although I've tried indexing with things like alter table events add index idx_test (venue_id, class_id, start_time); to improve performance it's still incredibly slow (I tend to abort them when they're past the 10 minute mark so don't know for sure how long they'd take to complete).
I figured this was a good use case for a summary table (as suggested by Rick James' guide) so that I could hold a separate set of summarized data broken down into day with occurrences and total duration calculated/incremented with each addition to the table (IODKU). However I'm then also up against creating rows per day in a summary table based on what is considered a day in the database (UTC) which may not match with the application's "day" due to timezone offset.
Short of converting the start_time column to a timestamp type (which is then inconsistent with all other date types in the database) is there any way round this or is there any other optimization I could be making to the original events table resulting in a more responsive query? TIA
Update 23/05
Here's the buffer pool size:
SHOW VARIABLES LIKE 'innodb_buffer_pool_size';
+-------------------------+-----------+
| Variable_name | Value |
+-------------------------+-----------+
| innodb_buffer_pool_size | 134217728 |
+-------------------------+-----------+
I've also made a bit of progress with indexing, modifying the query and creating a summary table.
I tried various ordering of columns to test indexes and found idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime (below), to be the most efficient for the event table:
SHOW INDEXES FROM EVENT;
+-------+------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+---------+------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment | Visible | Expression |
+-------+------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+---------+------------+
| event | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 62142912 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
| event | 1 | fk_class_id_idx | 1 | class_id | A | 51286 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
| event | 1 | fk_venue_id_idx | 1 | venue_id | A | 16275 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
| event | 1 | idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime | 1 | venue_id | A | 13378 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
| event | 1 | idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime | 2 | class_id | A | 81331 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
| event | 1 | idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime | 3 | start_time | A | 63909472 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | | YES | NULL |
+-------+------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+---------+------------+
Here's my modified version of the query, using JOIN syntax and now uses CONVERT_TZ to convert from UTC to the timezone required for reporting and then group that by the date (discarding the time portion):
SELECT
DATE(CONVERT_TZ(event.start_time,
'UTC',
'Europe/London')) AS tz_date,
class.name,
client.name,
venue.name,
COUNT(class.id) AS occurrences,
SUM(class.duration) AS duration
FROM
event
JOIN
class ON class.id = event.class_id
JOIN
venue ON venue.id = event.venue_id
JOIN
client ON client.id = class.client_id
GROUP BY tz_date, class.name, client.name, venue.name;
And here's the output of explain for that query:
+----+-------------+--------+------------+--------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+---------+-------------------------+------+----------+------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | partitions | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | filtered | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------+------------+--------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+---------+-------------------------+------+----------+------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | venue | NULL | index | PRIMARY,idx_venue_id_name | idx_venue_id_name | 772 | NULL | 28 | 100.00 | Using index; Using temporary |
| 1 | SIMPLE | event | NULL | ref | fk_class_id_idx,fk_venue_id_idx,idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime | idx_event_venueid_classid_starttime | 5 | example.venue.id | 4777 | 100.00 | Using where; Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | class | NULL | eq_ref | PRIMARY,fk_client_id_idx | PRIMARY | 4 | example.event.class_id | 1 | 100.00 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | client | NULL | eq_ref | PRIMARY,idx_client_id_name | PRIMARY | 4 | example.class.client_id | 1 | 100.00 | NULL |
+----+-------------+--------+------------+--------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+---------+-------------------------+------+----------+------------------------------+
The query takes ~1m 20s to run now so I figured I could prepend that with an insert into to populate a summary table with the dates being timezone specific and run that on a nightly basis. Summary table structure:
CREATE TABLE `summary` (
`tz_date` date NOT NULL,
`class` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`client` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`venue` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`occurrences` int NOT NULL,
`duration` int NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`tz_date`,`class`,`client`,`venue`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3
From the original ~60m+ rows in the event table, the aggregated summary table is populated with ~66k rows.
To then generate the reports from the summary table it takes a fraction of a second (shown below with data snipped):
SELECT * FROM SUMMARY;
66989 rows in set (0.03 sec)
I haven't looked into the impact of inserting into event while the query to populate the summary table is running - is using InnoDB likely to slow that down?
No further indexes are likely to help. It need to scan all the events table, reaching into the other tables to get the names.
Some things for us to look at:
SHOW VARIABLES LIKE 'innodb_buffer_pool_size';
EXPLAIN SELECT ...
How much RAM do you have?
Do the aggregates (COUNT and SUM) look correct? In some situations involving JOIN, they can be over-inflated.
Please use the newer JOIN ... ON syntax. (Won't change performance.)
As you observed, a Summary Table may help -- but only of the older data is not being modified. Please provide the SHOW CREATE TABLE and query for it.
Yes, timezone vs "definition of day" is a thorny issue. Notice how StackOverflow defines day based on UTC.
How many new rows are there per day? Are they spread out somewhat evenly throughout the day? If the average number of rows per hour is at least 20, then the Summary Table could be based on half-hour intervals. (I picked that because of India time vs most of the rest of the world.) The 20 comes from a Rule of Thumb that says that a summary table should have one-tenth as many rows as the Fact table.
Yes, TIMESTAMP instead of DATETIME may be a workaround.
Since you are talking about moderately large tables, consider whether to change INT NULL to SMALLINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL or some other sized integer.
(As for the cliff in 2038, ask yourself how many databases have been active on the same hardware and software since 2006. That may give some perspective on whether your design must survive 16 years.)

Any possibility to speed up WHERE IN or replace it with faster alternative?

I am trying to speed up select in query below where I have over 1000 items in WHERE IN
table:
CREATE TABLE `user_item` (
`user_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
`item_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`user_id`,`item_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
query:
SELECT
item_id
FROM
user_item
WHERE
user_id = 2
AND item_id IN(3433456,67584634,587345,...)
With 1000 items in IN list, query takes about 3 seconds to execute. is there any optimization that can be done in this case? There can be billions of rows in this table. Is there an alternative to doing this faster be it with another DB or programming method?
UPDATE:
Here's results of explain:
If I have 999 items in the IN(...) statement:
+------+-------------+----------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+------+-------------+----------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | user_item | range | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 8 | NULL | 999 | Using where; Using index |
+------+-------------+----------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+------+------+--------------------------+
If I have 1000 items in IN(...) statement:
+------+--------------+-------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------+------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+------+--------------+-------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------+------+--------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | <subquery2> | ALL | distinct_key | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1000 | |
| 1 | PRIMARY | user_item | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 8 | const,tvc_0._col_1 | 1 | Using where; Using index |
| 2 | MATERIALIZED | <derived3> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1000 | |
| 3 | DERIVED | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | No tables used |
+------+--------------+-------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------+------+--------------------------+
Update 2
I want to explain why I need to do above:
I want to give the user the ability to list items ordered by sort_criteria_1, sort_criteria_2 or sort_criteria_3 and exclude from the list those items that have been marked by given (n) users in the user_item table.
Here's sample schema:
CREATE TABLE `user` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `item` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`file` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
`sort_criteria_1` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`sort_criteria_2` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`sort_criteria_3` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `idx_sc1` (`sort_criteria_1`),
KEY `idx_sc2` (`sort_criteria_2`),
KEY `idx_sc3` (`sort_criteria_3`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `user_item` (
`user_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`item_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`user_id`,`item_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Here's how I would get items ordered by sort_criteria_2 excluding ones that have record by users (300, 6, 1344, 24) in user_item table:
SELECT
i.id,
FROM
item i
LEFT JOIN user_item ui1 ON (i.id = ui1.item_id AND ui1.user_id = 300)
LEFT JOIN user_item ui2 ON (i.id = ui2.item_id AND ui2.user_id = 6)
LEFT JOIN user_item ui3 ON (i.id = ui3.item_id AND ui3.user_id = 1344)
LEFT JOIN user_item ui4 ON (i.id = ui4.item_id AND ui4.user_id = 24)
WHERE
ui1.item_id IS NULL
AND ui2.item_id IS NULL
AND ui3.item_id IS NULL
AND ui4.item_id IS NULL
ORDER BY
v.sort_criteria_2
LIMIT
800
Main problem with above approach is that more users I'm filtering by, more expensive query gets. I want the toll for filtering to be paid by client browser. So I would send list of items and list of matching user_item records per user to the client to filter by. This would help with sharding as well, since I would not have to have user_item tables or set of records on the same machine.
It's hard to tell exactly, but there could be lag on parsing your huge query because of many constant item_id values.
Have you tried getting just all the values by user_id ? As this field is first (main) in the PRIMARY KEY, relevant index would still be used.
Have you tried replacing constant list with a subquery ? Maybe you're interested in items of specific type, for example.
Make sure that you use Prepared statement concept - at least if your database and language support it. This would protect your code from possible SQL injections and enable database built-in query caching (if your database supports it).
Instead of putting the 1000 item_id's into IN-clause, you could put them into temporary table with index and join it with the user_item-table.
If you also have an index with both user_id and item_id, that would make the query fastest that it gets. The rest depends on the data distribution.

Horrible MySQL index behavior with a simplest IN statement

I have found that MySQL (Win 7 64, 5.6.14) does not use index properly if I specify table output for IN statement. USER table contains 900k records.
If I use IN (_SOME_TABLE_OUTPUT_) syntax - I get fullscan for all 900k users. Query runs forever.
If I use IN ('CONCRETE','VALUES') syntax - I get a correct index usage.
How can I make MySQL finally USE the index?
1st case:
explain SELECT gu.id FROM USER gu WHERE gu.uuid in
(select '11b6a540-0dc5-44e0-877d-b3b83f331231' union
select '11b6a540-0dc5-44e0-877d-b3b83f331232');
+----+--------------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+--------------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+--------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | gu | index | NULL | uuid | 257 | NULL | 829930 | Using where; Using index |
| 2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | No tables used |
| 3 | DEPENDENT UNION | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | No tables used |
| NULL | UNION RESULT | <union2,3> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | Using temporary |
+----+--------------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+--------------------------+
2nd case:
explain SELECT gu.id FROM USER gu WHERE gu.uuid in
('11b6a540-0dc5-44e0-877d-b3b83f331231');
+----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+--------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | gu | ref | uuid | uuid | 257 | const | 1 | Using where; Using index |
+----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+--------------------------+
Table structure:
CREATE TABLE `USER` (
`id` bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`version` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`email` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`uuid` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`partner_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`password` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`date_created` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`last_updated` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `unique-email` (`partner_id`,`email`),
KEY `uuid` (`uuid`),
CONSTRAINT `fk_USER_partner` FOREIGN KEY (`partner_id`) REFERENCES `partner` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT `FKB2D9FEBE725C505E` FOREIGN KEY (`partner_id`) REFERENCES `partner` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=3315452 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
FORCE INDEX and USE INDEX statements don't change anything.
Demonstration SQLfiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/c607e1/2
In fact I faced such problem before and it happened that I had one table that had a single column set as UTF-8 and the other tables where latin1. It did not matter what I did, MySQL insisted on using no indexes. The problem is quite well described on this blog post Slow queries in MySQL due to collation problems. Once you manage to fix the character set, I believe any of the queries will work.
An inner join on your virtual table might give you better performance. Try something along these lines.
SELECT gu.id
FROM USER gu
INNER JOIN (
select '11b6a540-0dc5-44e0-877d-b3b83f331231' uuid
union all
select '11b6a540-0dc5-44e0-877d-b3b83f331232') ids
on gu.uuid = ids.uuid;

MySQL JOIN extremely poor performance

I've been messing around all day trying to find why my query performance is terrible. It is extremely simple, yet can take over 15 minutes to execute (I abort the query at that stage). I am joining a table with over 2 million records.
This is the select:
SELECT
audit.MessageID, alerts.AlertCount
FROM
audit
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT MessageID, COUNT(ID) AS 'AlertCount'
FROM alerts
GROUP BY MessageID
) AS alerts ON alerts.MessageID = audit.MessageID
This is the EXPLAIN
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | filtered | Extra |
| 1 | PRIMARY | AL | index | NULL | IDX_audit_MessageID | 4 | NULL | 2330944 | 100.00 | Using index |
| 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 124140 | 100.00 | |
| 2 | DERIVED | alerts | index | NULL | IDX_alerts_MessageID | 5 | NULL | 124675 | 100.00 | Using index |
This is the schema:
# Not joining, just showing types
CREATE TABLE messages (
ID int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
MessageID varchar(255) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (ID),
INDEX IDX_messages_MessageID (MessageID)
);
# 2,324,931 records
CREATE TABLE audit (
ID int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
MessageID int NOT NULL,
LogTimestamp timestamp NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (ID),
INDEX IDX_audit_MessageID (MessageID),
CONSTRAINT FK_audit_MessageID FOREIGN KEY(MessageID) REFERENCES messages(ID)
);
# 124,140
CREATE TABLE alerts (
ID int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
AlertLevel int NOT NULL,
Text nvarchar(4096) DEFAULT NULL,
MessageID int DEFAULT 0,
PRIMARY KEY (ID),
INDEX IDX_alert_MessageID (MessageID),
CONSTRAINT FK_alert_MessageID FOREIGN KEY(MessageID) REFERENCES messages(ID)
);
A few very important things to note - the MessageID is not 1:1 in either 'audit' or 'alerts'; The MessageID can exist in one table, but not the other, or may exist in both (which is the purpose of my join); In my test DB, none of the MessageID exist in both. In other words, my query will return 2.3 million records with 0 as the count.
Another thing to note is that the 'audit' and 'alert' tables used to use MessageID as varchar(255). I created the 'messages' table expecting that it would fix the join. It actually made it worse. Previously, it would take 78 seconds, now, it never returns.
What am I missing about MySQL?
Subqueries are very hard for the MySQL engine to optimize. Try:
SELECT
audit.MessageID, COUNT(alerts.ID) AS AlertCount
FROM
audit
LEFT JOIN alerts ON alerts.MessageID = audit.MessageID
GROUP BY audit.MessageID
You're joining to a subquery.
The subquery results are effectively a temporary table - note the <derived2> in the query execution plan. As you can see there, they're not indexed, since they're ephemeral.
You should execute the query as a single unit with a join, rather than joining to the results of a second query.
EDIT: Andrew has posted an answer with one example of how to do your work in a normal join query, instead of in two steps.