I have 3 tables blog_articles, blog_tags and blog_articles_tags. Pretty basic stuff, a blog where articles can have tags.
CREATE TABLE `blog_articles` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`title` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`body` text NOT NULL,
`datetime` datetime NOT NULL,
`author` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`published` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `author` (`author`),
FULLTEXT KEY `title` (`title`,`body`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=5 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `blog_articles_tags` (
`article` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`article`,`tag`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `blog_tags` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`description` text,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=6 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Here is a working example, selecting blog posts with their tags and author
But if I switch the sort from descending to ascending, I get messed up results
However if I remove the columns of the blog_tags table from the list of columns to select, the order is correct
There are two questions I would like to ask:
Why is the sequence of the rows altered by the columns that are selected?
How can I prevent this without modifying the SQL statement anywhere outside of the inner-most query?
I cannot modify the SQL statement because that is an automatically generated statement and I can not determine (easily if at all) what the sort will be and if any successive columns added to the select clause will alter the results even further.
Queries in SQL are unordered unless you specify an ORDER BY. Any ordering you happen to get is an artifact of the implementation and cannot be relied upon.
You have an ORDER BY in one of your virtual tables, but nothing for the outer query. Since it includes several joins you can't even count on MySQL coincidentally preserving the order of the virtual table.
There's little reason to put an ORDER BY on a sub-query unless you're doing something advanced like adding a row-number. So the whole sub-query can be dropped and just join on blog_articles. Then you can ORDER BY blog_articles.id.
Related
I am using spring-boot, mysql and JDBC in my application.
I have a table which is like below
CREATE TABLE `post` (
`id` bigint(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`ref` varchar(255) DEFAULT '',
`userId` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`text` varchar(255),
`count` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`version` bigint(11) DEFAULT NULL
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=15 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;
In this table, I have a column count which depends on the combination of unique ref, userId and text columns eg. if the combination of these columns is not present in DB then the count will be 1 but if the combination already exists in DB, the count value will be 0.
I run into the problem, when the two or more users are trying to post with same ref, userId and text at the same time. Out of these request only one should get count as one and other ones as zero.
How can I handle this case when multiple users are trying to post with same values?
My problem is a slow search query with a one-to-many relationship between the tables. My tables look like this.
Table Assignment
CREATE TABLE `Assignment` (
`Id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`ProjectId` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`AssignmentTypeId` smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL,
`AssignmentNumber` varchar(30) NOT NULL,
`AssignmentNumberExternal` varchar(50) DEFAULT NULL,
`DateStart` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`DateEnd` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`DateDeadline` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`DateCreated` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`Deleted` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`Lat` double DEFAULT NULL,
`Lon` double DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`Id`),
KEY `idx_assignment_assignment_type_id` (`AssignmentTypeId`),
KEY `idx_assignment_assignment_number` (`AssignmentNumber`),
KEY `idx_assignment_assignment_number_external`
(`AssignmentNumberExternal`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=5280 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Table ExtraFields
CREATE TABLE `ExtraFields` (
`assignment_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`name` varchar(30) NOT NULL,
`value` text,
PRIMARY KEY (`assignment_id`,`name`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
My search query
SELECT
`Assignment`.`Id`, COL_5_72, COL_5_73, COL_5_74, COL_5_75, COL_5_76,
COL_5_77 FROM (
SELECT
`Assignment`.`Id`,
`Assignment`.`AssignmentNumber` AS COL_5_72,
`Assignment`.`AssignmentNumberExternal` AS COL_5_73 ,
`AssignmentType`.`Name` AS COL_5_74,
`Assignment`.`DateStart` AS COL_5_75,
`Assignment`.`DateEnd` AS COL_5_76,
`Assignment`.`DateDeadline` AS COL_5_77 FROM `Assignment`
CASE WHEN `ExtraField`.`Name` = "WorkDistrict" THEN
`ExtraField`.`Value` end as COL_5_78 FROM `Assignment`
LEFT JOIN `ExtraFields` as `ExtraField` on
`ExtraField`.`assignment_id` = `Assignment`.`Id`
WHERE `Assignment`.`Deleted` IS NULL -- Assignment should not be removed.
AND (1=1) -- Add assignment filters.
) AS q1
GROUP BY `Assignment`.`Id`
HAVING 1 = 1
AND COL_5_78 LIKE '%Amsterdam East%'
ORDER BY COL_5_72 ASC, COL_5_73 ASC;
When the table is only around 3500 records my query takes a couple of seconds to execute and return the results.
What is a better way to search in the related data? Should I just add a JSON field to the Assignment table and use the MySQL 5.7 Json query features? Or did I made a mistake in designing my database?
You are using select from subquery that forces MySQL to create unindexed temp table for each execution. Remove subquery (you really don't need it here) and it will be much faster.
I have a query that I'm using to summarize via aggregations.
The table is called 'connections' and has about 843 million rows.
CREATE TABLE `connections` (
`app_id` varchar(16) DEFAULT NULL,
`user_id` bigint(20) DEFAULT NULL,
`time_started_dt` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`device` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`os` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`firmware` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
KEY `app_id` (`bid`),
KEY `time_started_dt` (`time_started_dt`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
When I try to run a query, such as the one below, it takes over 10 hours and I end up killing it. Does anyone see any mistakes that I'm making, of have any suggestions as to how I could optimize the query?
SELECT
app_id,
MAX(time_started_dt),
MIN(time_started_dt),
COUNT(*)
FROM
connections
GROUP BY
app_id
I suggest you create a composite index on (app_id, time_started_dt):
ALTER TABLE connections ADD INDEX(app_id, time_started_dt)
To get that query to perform, you really need a suitable covering index, with app_id as the leading column, e.g.
CREATE INDEX `connections_IX1` ON `connections` (`app_id`,` time_start_dt`);
NOTE: creating the index may take hours, and the operation will prevent insert/update/delete to the table while it is running.
An EXPLAIN will show the proposed execution plan for your query. With the covering index in place, you'll see "Using index" in the plan. (A "covering index" is an index that can be used by MySQL to satisfy a query without having to access the underlying table. That is, the query can be satisfied entirely from the index.)
With the large number of rows in this table, you may also want to consider partitioning.
I have tried your query on randomly generated data (around 1 million rows). Adding PRIMATY KEY will improve performance of your query by 10%.
As already suggested by other people composite index should be added to the table. Index time_started_dt is useless.
CREATE TABLE `connections` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`app_id` varchar(16) DEFAULT NULL,
`user_id` bigint(20) DEFAULT NULL,
`time_started_dt` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
`device` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`os` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`firmware` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `composite_idx` (`app_id`,`time_started_dt`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
I have a project where the admin needs to create multiple newsletters with some crawled posts from the web.
I insert the posts in posts table after crawling has completed and assign them a feed_id to identify the source. this is the structure of posts table (truncated):
CREATE TABLE `posts` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`feed_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`created_at` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`identifier` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`published` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`content` longtext,
...
...
`is_unread` int(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Every admin (user) has access to one or more "feeds". So in Newsletter creation page I want to show them a list of posts from the feeds they are allowed to see and also, I show a button to put the posts in specifict categories of that newsletter, if the user previously selected that post, I should show him that and let him remove it from the category. So I have some other tables too: newsletters, categories, newsletter_post, category_post. Here is their structures:
newsletters:
CREATE TABLE `newsletters` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`created_at` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`sent_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`title` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`date` date DEFAULT NULL,
`topic_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`user_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
categories:
CREATE TABLE `categories` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`topic_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`title` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
`slug` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
newsletter_post:
CREATE TABLE `newsletter_post` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`created_at` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`newsletter_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`post_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
category_post:
CREATE TABLE `category_post` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`created_at` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`updated_at` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`category_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`post_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
So I'm using this query to find posts for the allowed feeds and check the status if a post is in a specific category of this specific newsletter:
SELECT DISTINCT `posts`.`id`, `published`, `posts`.`title`, `posts`.`content`, `source_name`, `category_id`, `newsletter_id`, `link_href`, categories.title as category_title
FROM `posts`
LEFT JOIN `category_post` ON `posts`.`id` = `category_post`.`post_id`
LEFT JOIN `categories` ON `categories`.`id` = `category_post`.`category_id`
LEFT JOIN `newsletter_post` ON `posts`.`id` = `newsletter_post`.`post_id`
LEFT JOIN `newsletters` ON `newsletters`.`id` = `newsletter_post`.`newsletter_id`
WHERE `feed_id` IN (6, 7) ORDER BY `posts`.`published` DESC LIMIT 40 OFFSET 0
but the problem is this is horrible and not optimized. My posts table contains up to 50,000 rows each month, and each row with 3~10kbs of data in avg., so sometimes when I try to run the query (which is frequently run by the admin to make the newsletter, pagination etc) mysql shows this error: too much rows to join, etc. and most of the times its really slow.
and the reason I'm doing all this in one query is because I want the result to be in one json response so I can show them the user quickly without doing additional requests.
I wanna know if there is a better way to do this query or use indexes or something else.
Thanks you in advance for your help.
index your posts table on
( feed_id, published )
so the data is already optimized for your WHERE clause, and pre-sorted to help your ORDER BY.
For reading querys that have a lot of demand, InnoDB is very inefficient. I recommend you to use a NoSQL Database but if you don't want or the cost of change is too much... you can try this:
1) LIKE Sallar Kaboli told you, you have to index your tables in columns that use in JOIN querys. For example:
CREATE INDEX index1 ON newsletter_post (post_id);
2) USE only important columns for JOINS.
I mean, you have to only use the columns that use in SELECT part of query.
I hope this'd be helpful.
To complete other answers, I suggest to change this types on posts table:
1) Change feed_id to int(4). Really you have more than int(4) feeds?
2) Change is_unread to bit instead of int(1). I should say that this may not improve your given query in the question but according to the field name, the correct type is bit.
Another more improvement to this answer is that never use default int(11) for numeric or id fields, assign types more specific. Using smaller size of types will improve your indexes also. I don't think you need more than int(4) for fields id.
For example indexing and querying int(3) column is more faster than int(11).
Please create the following indexes indexes on ::
1) `post_id` in `category_post`
2) `post_id` in `newsletter_post`
This is a theoretical question based on an application I have. I am wondering if there is some technical insight to be gained beyond just speed tests on my system.
I have the following two tables:
CREATE TABLE `files` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`url` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`processed` tinyint(1) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`last_processed` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `url` (`url`),
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=1 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
and...
CREATE TABLE `file_metas` (
`file_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`title` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`description` varchar(1000) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`keywords` varchar(1000) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIMARY KEY (`file_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
The file_metas data is long text strings about each file from the files table. Each file only has one entry in the file_metas table so these two tables could be combined.
I'm wondering what affect adding the long text fields to the files table will have on the performance of select statements done on the files table when I'm not selecting for title, description, or keywords. I'm curious about the technical details. Does simply having the text fields in the table slow queries not involving those fields? How does this work in general with MySQL MyISAM tables? Is there any good reason to keep the file_metas data in a separate table?