I have created a column stored index(Clustered/Non-Clustered) on a table. But when i use that table in my query always Column Store Index scan is coming in the Execution Plan. Why Column-Store Index seek is not coming ?
Related
I am running some MySQL queries on a pretty large table (not on Facebook scale, but around a million rows), and I am finding them very slow. The reason, I suspect, is that I am querying on an id field, but that id has not been declared as primary key, and also no index has been declared.
I cannot set the id field to primary key, because it is not unique, although its cardinality is pretty close to 1. Under these circumstances, if I do a alter table to add an index on the id field, is it supposed to boost up the query speed, given that it is not a primary key?
And supposing it does, how long will it take for the index to develop fully so that the queries start executing quickly? I mean, the moment the prompt appears after executing the alter table, or is it that even though the prompt appears the index building will go on internally for quite some time? (I am asking before doing it because I am not sure whether declaring index on non-unique field corrupts the db or not)
Any index will speed up queries that match on the corresponding column. There's no significant difference between the primary key and other indexes in this regard.
The index is created immediately when you execute the ALTER TABLE query. When the prompt returns, the index is there and will be used. There's no corruption while this is happening.
I am using a graph database neo4j for storing data. I need three values from neo4j for every node and index into mysql.
The three values will be integers or long type and there will be millions of sets of these 3 numbers.
As far as I understand, in mysql, we need to create a table and then index its columns.
here lets say, i create a table "test" and int1, int2 & int3 as column names, then I can index these columns.
The problem is:- this increases unnecessary memory requirement, memory taken by both table and index.
Is there a way to create indexes in mysql, without creating a table?
so I executed this query on a table:
EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table;
and the 'rows' column from the output is displayed as NULL (whereas usually it will show how many rows the query went through)...
does this mean that the COUNT command is instantaneous and therefore does not require going through any row whatsoever?
If your table uses the MyISAM storage engine, then yes, that query resolves in constant time. The row count is part of the table metadata, the table itself does not have to be examined.
From: http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL#COUNT.28.2A.29
Depending on what engine you are using, and I'm guessing it's MyISAM, a quick index count is executed rather than actually counting all the rows.
Many database engines use an index scan to get the count. If you're using MyISAM (fairly likely), it just reads a number in the engine index and returns it. Nearly instantaneous.
Edit:
InnoDB does a full table scan, so it will almost always be slower (than an engine that uses the table index), unless you're comparing queries with a WHERE clause.
I have a table which I do mainly updates and I'm wondering if update queries would benefit from having an index on the where column and the updated column or an index on just where column?
Just on the where column. An index on the update column will actually slow down your query because the index has to be updated along with the data. An index on the where column will speed up updates, and selects, but slow down some insertions.
Indices also cause overhead when you delete rows. In general they are a good thing though on columns you are using WHERE on a lot, and they are basically necessary on columns you do joins on, or ORDER BY
Not a straight forward answer for this one. So here goes.
UPDATE table SET ColumnA = 'something'
if an index exists on ColumnA then you will have a slight performance hit as there will be two write operations for each row. First the data in the table and then the write for the index update.You can even have several indexes that each have ColumnA as part of the index which mean you will have several writes in addition to the table row. You can see how having more than a few indexes can start to really slow your updates down.
But if ColumnA is not indexed at all then it will be a single write for each row only.
UPDATE table SET ColumnA = 'something' WHERE ColumnB = 'something else'
For this query if an index exists on ColumnB and not on ColumnA, it will be very fast to locate the record (called a seek) and a single write to update, and as the index doesn't care about columnA, it wont need updating.But if you index ColumnA and not ColumnB, You will read every row in the table first (called a scan and normally a bad thing) which while a read is faster than a write it is still very slow, then it will write to the table and then another write for the index. Basically the slowest way of doing things.
DELETE table WHERE ColumnB = 'somethingelse'
Now if you have an index on any column in this table two writes, delete from table and a update/delete of the record in the index. Again if ColumnB is not indexed, you will scan the table then delete the row(s) from the table and update indexes if any.
INSERT INTO table (ColumnA, ColumnB) VALUES ('something','something else')
If no indexes exist, a single write to the table and it's done.
Again, if indexes do exist, then an extra write for each one.
I haven't mentioned the primary key unique constraints, because you really cant get around them when you need a primary key, but every record must be checked to see if something already exists with that key before insert. Which will be a fast primary key index seek, but nevertheless, its another step in the process. The less steps the faster it will be.
Now back to yours, Basically, if you need to update a specific record, an index will help you locate that record faster than scanning the entire table. The the time saved to locate the record will be much more then the time lost updating the indexes. If you are only inserting and never reading, then indexes will slow you down. It becomes a balance thing. If you need to read specific records, then an index will help immensely. But the more indexes, the slower the writes get.
Most people here don't know how indexes work in MySQL.
It depends on with storage engine you are using. InnoDB uses indexes completely different from MyISAM. This is because MySQL implements indexes on the storage engine level not the MySQL server level.
I'm afraid most people here are giving you answers based on other databases in which indexes work differently from MySQL.
InnoDB
In the case of InnoDB. This is because whenever a row is updated in InnoDB, the index has to be updated as well, as InnoDB's indexes have to be sequential, so it has to find out which page node of the index it is supposed to be in and inserted there. At times that particular page maybe full, so it has to split the page, wasting both space and increasing the time. This happens no matter which column you index because InnoDB uses clustered indexes, where the index stores the data of the entire row.
MyISAM
In the case of MyISAM, it does not have this problem. MyISAM actually uses only 1 column index, even though you can set multiple uniques on more than 1 column. Also MyISAM's index is not stored sequentially so updates are very quick. Likewise inserts are quick as well, as MyISAM just inserts it at the end of the row.
Conclusion
So in regard to your question, you should consider your schema design instead of worrying about whether the query would use the indexes. If you are updating mostly on a table, I suggest you not use InnoDB unless if you need row-level locking, high concurrency, and transactions. Otherwise MyISAM would be much better for update tasks. And no if you are using InnoDB indexes do not really help with updating, especially if the table is very large.
Is there any performance issues if you create an index with multiple columns, or should you do 1 index per column?
There's nothing inherently wrong with a multi-column index -- it depends completely on how you're going to query the data. If you have an index on colA+colB, it will help for queries like where colA='value' and colA='value' and colB='value' but it's not going to help for queries like colB='value'.
Advantages of MySQL Indexes
Generally speaking, MySQL indexing into database gives you three advantages:
Query optimization: Indexes make search queries much faster.
Uniqueness: Indexes like primary key index and unique index help to avoid duplicate row data.
Text searching: Full-text indexes in MySQL version 3.23.23, users have the opportunity to optimize searching against even large amounts of text located in any field indexed as such.
Disadvantages of MySQL indexes
When an index is created on the column(s), MySQL also creates a separate file that is sorted, and contains only the field(s) you're interested in sorting on.
Firstly, the indexes take up disk space. Usually the space usage isn’t significant, but because of creating index on every column in every possible combination, the index file would grow much more quickly than the data file. In the case when a table is of large table size, the index file could reach the operating system’s maximum file size.
Secondly, the indexes slow down the speed of writing queries, such as INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE. Because MySQL has to internally maintain the “pointers” to the inserted rows in the actual data file, so there is a performance price to pay in case of above said writing queries because every time a record is changed, the indexes must be updated. However, you may be able to write your queries in such a way that do not cause the very noticeable performance degradation.