Suppose the table T has three columns,
id int not null auto_increment,
my_id int,
name varchar(200).
and the query is "select * from T where my_id in (var_1, var_2, ..., var_n) and name = 'name_var'".
Is there any performance difference between below two indices?
Index1: (my_id, name)
Index2: (name, my_id).
•Index1: (my_id, name)
•Index2: (name, my_id).
Yes, above two would slightly differ when it comes to query performance.
Always, the leftmost fields are the most important in determining the efficiency and selectivity of an index.
index should be built on the column(s) which are frequently used in the WHERE, ORDER BY, and GROUP BY clauses.
Hope this helps!
In a composite index, the column to be searched should appear first. So, if you are searching for a set of id values, you'll want id to show up first in the index.
But if id is the primary key and you're using a SELECT * clause to retrieve the whole row, it doesn't make sense to add another index. The way tables are organized, all the data of the row appears clustered with each id value. So just use the index on the primary key.
tl;dr: neither (id,name) nor (name,id) will help this query.
In general, it is best to start the INDEX with the WHERE clauses with col = const. One range can come last. IN is sort of like =, sort like a range. Hence, this is best:
INDEX(name, id)
Think of it this way. The index is an ordered list. With this index, it will start at the name=... and then have to scan or leapfrog through all the ids with that name.
I suspect the PRIMARY KEY is not (id). If it were, why would you be checking the name?
Related
The problem I have is the following:
I have a table that contains about 100000000 rows
it has 22 fields - some numeric, some text
it has a primary key id (auto-incremented integer)
it has a field another_id of type bigint, and a unique key on it
it has a field called state that can take only 4 integer values (0 to 3)
I need that the queries of the following form are executed as fast as possible:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM my_table
WHERE another_id IN ( <about 100 values> )
AND state = ...
for different values of state.
How should the index look like? I was thinking about two options:
KEY another_id:state (another_id, state)
KEY state:another_id (state, another_id)
Is there any difference in performance between those two variants? Is there anything else to consider?
Edit: engine is InnoDB
For the query you show, you should create the index with state, another_id in that order.
Define the index with any columns referenced in equality conditions first, after them add one column referenced in a range condition or ORDER BY or GROUP BY.
You may also like my answer to Does Order of Fields of Multi-Column Index in MySQL Matter or my presentation How to Design Indexes, Really, or the video.
I agree with the answer above. One clarification though is that you want to have ita hash index not btree index. It should work faster. The hash index wouldn't work well with any queries that involve inequality such as <=
Step 1:
I am creating a simple table.
CREATE TABLE `indexs`.`table_one` (
`id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` VARCHAR(45) NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`));
Step 2:
I make two inserts into this table.
insert into table_one (name) values ("B");
insert into table_one (name) values ("A");
Step 3:
I make a select, I get a table, the records in which are ordered by id.
SELECT * FROM table_one;
This is the expected result, because in mysql the primary key is a clustered index, therefore the data will be physically ordered by it.
Now the part I don't understand.
Step 4:
I am creating an index on the name column.
CREATE INDEX index_name ON table_one(name)
I repeat step 3 again, but I get a different result. The lines are now ordered according to the name column.
Why is this happening? why the order of the rows in the table changes in accordance with the new index on the name column, because as far as I understand, in mysql, the primary key is the only clustered index, and all indexes created additionally are secondary.
I make a select, I get a table, the records in which are ordered by id. [...] This is the expected result, because in mysql the primary key is a clustered index, therefore the data will be physically ordered by it.
There is some misunderstanding of a concept here.
Table rows have no inherent ordering: they represent unordered set of rows. While the clustered index enforces a physical ordering of data in storage, it does not guarantee the order in which rows are returned by a select query.
If you want the results of the query to be ordered, then use an order by clause. Without such clause, the ordering or the rows is undefined: the database is free to return results in whichever order it likes, and results are not guaranteed to be consistent over consecutive executions of the same query.
select * from table_one order by id;
select * from table_one order by name;
(GMB explains most)
Why is this happening? why the order of the rows in the table changes in accordance with the new index on the name column
Use EXPLAIN SELECT ... -- it might give a clue of what I am about to suggest.
You added INDEX(name). In InnoDB, the PRIMARY KEY column(s) are tacked onto the end of each secondary index. So it is effectively a BTree ordered by (name,id) and containing only those columns.
Now, the Optimizer is free to fetch the data from the index, since it has everything you asked for (id and name). (This index is called "covering".)
Since you did not specify an ORDER BY, the result set ordering is valid (see GMB's discussion).
Moral of the story: If you want an ordering, specify ORDER BY. (The Optimizer is smart enough to "do no extra work" if it can see how to provide the data without doing a sort.
Further experiment: Add another column to the table but don't change the indexes. Now you will find SELECT * FROM t is ordered differently than SELECT id, name FROM t. I think I have given you enough clues to predict this difference, if not, ask.
I have a table in MySQL with two columns
id int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
B varchar(191) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 DEFAULT NULL,
The id being the PK.
I need to do a lookup in a query using either one of these. id in (:idList) or B in (:bList)
Would this query perform better if, there is a composite index with these two columns in them?
No, it will not.
Indexes can be used to look up values from the leftmost columns in an index:
MySQL can use multiple-column indexes for queries that test all the columns in the index, or queries that test just the first column, the first two columns, the first three columns, and so on. If you specify the columns in the right order in the index definition, a single composite index can speed up several kinds of queries on the same table.
So, if you have a composite index on id, B fields (in this order), then the index can be used to look up values based on their id, or a combination of id and B values. But cannot be used to look up values based on B only. However, in case of an or condition that's what you need to do: look up values based on B only.
If both fields in the or condition are leftmost fields in an index, then MySQL attempts to do an index merge optimisation, so you may actually be better off having separate indexes for these two fields.
Note: if you use innodb table engine, then there is no point in adding the primary key to any multi column index because innodb silently adds the PK to every index.
For OR I dont think so.
Optimizer will try to find a match in the first side, if fail will try the second side. So Individual index for each search will be better.
For AND a composite index will help.
MySQL index TIPS
Of course you can always add the index and compare the explain plan.
MySQL Explain Plan
The trick for optimizing OR is to use UNION. (At least, it works well in some cases.)
( SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE id IN (...) )
UNION DISTINCT
( SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE B IN (...) )
Notes:
Need separate indexes on id and B.
No benefit from any composite index (unless it is also "covering").
Change DISTINCT to ALL if you know that there won't be any rows found by both the id and B tests. (This avoids a de-dup pass.)
If you need ORDER BY, add it after the SQL above.
If you need LIMIT, it gets messier. (This is probably not relevant for IN, but it often is with ORDER BY.)
If the rows are 'wide' and the resultset has very few rows, it may be further beneficial to do
Something like this:
SELECT t...
FROM t
JOIN (
( SELECT id FROM t WHERE id IN (...) )
UNION DISTINCT
( SELECT id FROM t WHERE B IN (...) )
) AS u USING(id);
Notes:
This needs PRIMARY KEY(id) and INDEX(B, id). (Actually there is no diff, as Michael pointed out.)
The UNION is cheaper here because of collecting only id, not the bulky columns.
The SELECTs in the UNION are faster because you should be able to provide "covering" indexes.
ORDER BY would go at the very end.
After adding foreign keys mysql forced to index the keys which indexed before with multiple index method. I use InnoDB.
Here is a structure of my table:
id, company_id, student_id ...
company_id and student_id had been indexed using:
ALTER TABLE `table` ADD INDEX `multiple_index` (`company_id`,`student_id`)
Why I use multiple index column? Because, the most time my query is:
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE company_id = 1 AND student_id = 3
Sometime i just fetch columns by student_id:
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE student_id = 3
After adding foreign keys for company_id and student_id mysql indexed both of them separately. So, now I have multiple and separately indexed fields.
My question is should I drop the multiple indexed keys?
It depends. If the same student belongs to many companies, no, don't drop it. When querying for company_id = 1 AND student_id = 3, the optimizer has to pick one index, and after that, it will either have to check multiple students or multiple companies.
My gut tells me this won't be the case, though; students won't be associated with more than ~10 companies, so scanning over the index a bit won't be a big deal. That said, this is a lot more brittle than having the index on both columns. In that case, the optimizer knows what the right thing to do is, here. When it has two indices to pick from, it might not, and it might not in the future, so you should FORCE INDEX to make sure it uses the student_id index.
The other thing to consider is how this table is used. If it's rarely written to but read frequently, there's not much of a penalty beyond space for the extra index.
TL;DR: the index is not redundant. Whether or not you should keep it is complicated.
Assume I have this table:
create table table_a (
id int,
name varchar(25),
address varchar(25),
primary key (id)
) engine = innodb;
When I run this query:
select * from table_a where id >= 'x' and name = 'test';
How will MySQL process it? Will it pull all the id's first (assume 1000 rows) then apply the where clause name = 'test'?
Or while it looks for the ids, it is already applying the where clause at the same time?
As id is the PK (and no index on name) it will load all rows that satisfy the id based criterion into memory after which it will filter the resultset by the name criterion. Adding a composite index containing both fields would mean that it would only load the records that satisfy both criteria. Adding a separate single column index on the name field may not result in an index merge operation, in which case the index would have no effect.
Do you have indexes on either column? That may affect the execution plan. The other thing is one might cast the 'x'::int to ensure a numeric comparison instead of a string comparison.
For the best result, you should have a single index which includes both of the columns id and name.
In your case, I can't answer the affect of the primary index to that query. That depends on DBMS's and versions. If you really don't want to put more index (because more index means slow write and updates) just populate your table with like 10.000.000 random results, try it and see the effect.
you can compare the execution times by executing the query first when the id comes first in the where clause and then interchange and bring the name first. to see an example of mysql performance with indexes check this out http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/06/02/indexes-in-mysql/
You can get information on how the query is processed by running EXPLAIN on the query.
If the idea is to optimize that query then you might want to add an index like:
alter table table_a add unique index name_id_idx (name, id);