I've found a few questions that deal with this problem, and it appears that MySQL doesn't allow it. That's fine, I don't have to have a subquery in the FROM clause. However, I don't know how to get around it. Here's my setup:
I have a metrics table that has 3 columns I want: ControllerID, TimeStamp, and State. Basically, a data gathering engine contacts each controller in the database every 5 minutes and sticks an entry in the metrics table. The table has those three columns, plus a MetricsID that I don't care about. Maybe there is a better way to store those metrics, but I don't know it.
Regardless, I want a view that takes the most recent TimeStamp for each of the different ControllerIDs and grabs the TimeStamp, ControllerID, and State. So if there are 4 controllers, the view should always have 4 rows, each with a different controller, along with its most recent state.
I've been able to create a query that gets what I want, but it relies on a subquery in the FROM clause, something that isn't allowed in a view. Here is what I have so far:
SELECT *
FROM
(SELECT
ControllerID, TimeStamp, State
FROM Metrics
ORDER BY TimeStamp DESC)
AS t
GROUP BY ControllerID;
Like I said, this works great. But I can't use it in a view. I've tried using the max() function, but as per here: SQL: Any straightforward way to order results FIRST, THEN group by another column? if I want any additional columns besides the GROUP BY and ORDER BY columns, max() doesn't work. I've confirmed this limitation, it doesn't work.
I've also tried to alter the metrics table to order by TimeStamp. That doesn't work either; the wrong rows are kept.
Edit: Here is the SHOW CREATE TABLE of the Metrics table I am pulling from:
CREATE TABLE Metrics (
MetricsID int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
ControllerID int(11) NOT NULL,
TimeStamp timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
State tinyint(4) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (MetricsID),
KEY makeItFast (ControllerID,MetricsID),
KEY fast (ControllerID,TimeStamp),
KEY fast2 (MetricsID),
KEY MetricsID (MetricsID),
KEY TimeStamp (TimeStamp)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=8958 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
If you want the most recent row for each controller, the following is view friendly:
SELECT ControllerID, TimeStamp, State
FROM Metrics m
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM Metrics m2
WHERE m2.ControllerId = m.ControllerId and m2.Timestamp > m.TimeStamp
);
Your query is not correct anyway, because it uses a MySQL extension that is not guaranteed to work. The value for state doesn't necessary come from the row with the largest timestamp. It comes from an arbitrary row.
EDIT:
For best performance, you want an index on Metrics(ControllerId, Timestamp).
Edit Sorry, I misunderstood your question; I thought you were trying to overcome the nested-query limitation in a view.
You're trying to display the most recent row for each distinct ControllerID. Furthermore, you're trying to do it with a view.
First, let's do it. If your MetricsID column (which I know you don't care about) is an autoincrement column, this is really easy.
SELECT ControllerId, TimeStamp, State
FROM Metrics m
WHERE MetricsID IN (
SELECT MAX(MetricsID) MetricsID
FROM Metrics
GROUP BY ControllerID)
ORDER BY ControllerID
This query uses MAX ... GROUP BY to extract the highest-numbered (most recent) row for each controller. It can be made into a view.
A compound index on (ControllerID, MetricsID) will be able to satisfy the subquery with a highly efficient loose index scan.
The root cause of my confusion: I didn't read your question carefully enough.
The root cause of your confusion: You're trying to take advantage of a pernicious MySQL extension to GROUP BY. Your idea of ordering the subquery may have worked. But your temporary success is an accidental side-effect of the present implementation. Read this: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/group-by-handling.html
Related
Hi I currently have a query which is taking 11(sec) to run. I have a report which is displayed on a website which runs 4 different queries which are similar and all take 11(sec) each to run. I don't really want the customer having to wait a minute for all of these queries to run and display the data.
I am using 4 different AJAX requests to call an APIs to get the data I need and these all start at once but the queries are running one after another. If there was a way to get these queries to all run at once (parallel) so the total load time is only 11(sec) that would also fix my issue, I don't believe that is possible though.
Here is the query I am running:
SELECT device_uuid,
day_epoch,
is_repeat
FROM tracking_daily_stats_zone_unique_device_uuids_per_hour
WHERE day_epoch >= 1552435200
AND day_epoch < 1553040000
AND venue_id = 46
AND zone_id IN (102,105,108,110,111,113,116,117,118,121,287)
I can't think of anyway to speed this query up at all, below are pictures of the table indexes and the explain statement on this query.
I think the above query is using relevant indexes in the where conditions.
If there is anything you can think of to speed this query up please let me know, I have been working on it for 3 days and can't seem to figure out the problem. It would be great to get the query times down to 5(sec) maximum. If I am wrong about the AJAX issue please let me know as this would also fix my issue.
" EDIT "
I have came across something quite strange which might be causing the issue. When I change the day_epoch range to something smaller (5th - 9th) which returns 130,000 rows the query time is 0.7(sec) but then I add one more day onto that range (5th - 10th) and it returns over 150,000 rows the query time is 13(sec). I have ran loads of different ranges and have came to the conclusion if the amount of rows returned is over 150,000 that has a huge effect on the query times.
Table Definition -
CREATE TABLE `tracking_daily_stats_zone_unique_device_uuids_per_hour` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`day_epoch` int(10) NOT NULL,
`day_of_week` tinyint(1) NOT NULL COMMENT 'day of week, monday = 1',
`hour` int(2) NOT NULL,
`venue_id` int(5) NOT NULL,
`zone_id` int(5) NOT NULL,
`device_uuid` binary(16) NOT NULL COMMENT 'binary representation of the device_uuid, unique for a single day',
`device_vendor_id` int(5) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0' COMMENT 'id of the device vendor',
`first_seen` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`last_seen` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`is_repeat` tinyint(1) NOT NULL COMMENT 'is the device a repeat for this day?',
`prev_last_seen` int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0' COMMENT 'previous last seen ts',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`venue_id`) USING BTREE,
KEY `venue_id` (`venue_id`),
KEY `zone_id` (`zone_id`),
KEY `day_of_week` (`day_of_week`),
KEY `day_epoch` (`day_epoch`),
KEY `hour` (`hour`),
KEY `device_uuid` (`device_uuid`),
KEY `is_repeat` (`is_repeat`),
KEY `device_vendor_id` (`device_vendor_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=450967720 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
/*!50100 PARTITION BY HASH (venue_id)
PARTITIONS 100 */
The straight forward solution is to add this query specific index to the table:
ALTER TABLE tracking_daily_stats_zone_unique_device_uuids_per_hour
ADD INDEX complex_idx (`venue_id`, `day_epoch`, `zone_id`)
WARNING This query change can take a while on DB.
And then force it when you call:
SELECT device_uuid,
day_epoch,
is_repeat
FROM tracking_daily_stats_zone_unique_device_uuids_per_hour
USE INDEX (complex_idx)
WHERE day_epoch >= 1552435200
AND day_epoch < 1553040000
AND venue_id = 46
AND zone_id IN (102,105,108,110,111,113,116,117,118,121,287)
It is definitely not universal but should work for this particular query.
UPDATE When you have partitioned table you can get profit by forcing particular PARTITION. In our case since that is venue_id just force it:
SELECT device_uuid,
day_epoch,
is_repeat
FROM tracking_daily_stats_zone_unique_device_uuids_per_hour
PARTITION (`p46`)
WHERE day_epoch >= 1552435200
AND day_epoch < 1553040000
AND zone_id IN (102,105,108,110,111,113,116,117,118,121,287)
Where p46 is concatenated string of p and venue_id = 46
And another trick if you go this way. You can remove AND venue_id = 46 from WHERE clause. Because there is no other data in that partition.
What happens if you change the order of conditions? Put venue_id = ? first. The order matters.
Now it first checks all rows for:
- day_epoch >= 1552435200
- then, the remaining set for day_epoch < 1553040000
- then, the remaining set for venue_id = 46
- then, the remaining set for zone_id IN (102,105,108,110,111,113,116,117,118,121,287)
When working with heavy queries, you should always try to make the first "selector" the most effective. You can do that by using a proper index for 1 (or combination) index and to make sure that first selector narrows down the most (at least for integers, in case of strings you need another tactic).
Sometimes, a query simply is slow. When you have a lot of data (and/or not enough resources) you just cant really do anything about that. Thats where you need another solution: Make a summary table. I doubt you show 150.000 rows x4 to your visitor. You can sum it, e.g., hourly or every few minutes and select from that way smaller table.
Offtopic: Putting an index on everything only slows you down when inserting/updating/deleting. Index the least amount of columns, just the once you actually filter on (e.g. use in a WHERE or GROUP BY).
450M rows is rather large. So, I will discuss a variety of issues that can help.
Shrink data A big table leads to more I/O, which is the main performance killer. ('Small' tables tend to stay cached, and not have an I/O burden.)
Any kind of INT, even INT(2) takes 4 bytes. An "hour" can easily fit in a 1-byte TINYINT. That saves over a 1GB in the data, plus a similar amount in INDEX(hour).
If hour and day_of_week can be derived, don't bother having them as separate columns. This will save more space.
Some reason to use a 4-byte day_epoch instead of a 3-byte DATE? Or perhaps you do need a 5-byte DATETIME or TIMESTAMP.
Optimal INDEX (take #1)
If it is always a single venue_id, then either this is a good first cut at the optimal index:
INDEX(venue_id, zone_id, day_epoch)
First is the constant, then the IN, then a range. The Optimizer does well with this in many cases. (It is unclear whether the number of items in an IN clause can lead to inefficiencies.)
Better Primary Key (better index)
With AUTO_INCREMENT, there is probably no good reason to include columns after the auto_inc column in the PK. That is, PRIMARY KEY(id, venue_id) is no better than PRIMARY KEY(id).
InnoDB orders the data's BTree according to the PRIMARY KEY. So, if you are fetching several rows and can arrange for them to be adjacent to each other based on the PK, you get extra performance. (cf "Clustered".) So:
PRIMARY KEY(venue_id, zone_id, day_epoch, -- this order, as discussed above;
id) -- to make sure that the entire PK is unique.
INDEX(id) -- to keep AUTO_INCREMENT happy
And, I agree with DROPping any indexes that are not in use, including the one I recommended above. It is rarely useful to index flags (is_repeat).
UUID
Indexing a UUID can be deadly for performance once the table is really big. This is because of the randomness of UUIDs/GUIDs, leading to ever-increasing I/O burden to insert new entries in the index.
Multi-dimensional
Assuming day_epoch is sometimes multiple days, you seem to have 2 or 3 "dimensions":
A date range
A list of zones
A venue.
INDEXes are 1-dimensional. Therein lies the problem. However, PARTITIONing can sometimes help. I discuss this briefly as "case 2" in http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/partitionmaint .
There is no good way to get 3 dimensions, so let's focus on 2.
You should partition on something that is a "range", such as day_epoch or zone_id.
After that, you should decide what to put in the PRIMARY KEY so that you can further take advantage of "clustering".
Plan A: This assumes you are searching for only one venue_id at a time:
PARTITION BY RANGE(day_epoch) -- see note below
PRIMARY KEY(venue_id, zone_id, id)
Plan B: This assumes you sometimes srefineearch for venue_id IN (.., .., ...), hence it does not make a good first column for the PK:
Well, I don't have good advice here; so let's go with Plan A.
The RANGE expression must be numeric. Your day_epoch works fine as is. Changing to a DATE, would necessitate BY RANGE(TO_DAYS(...)), which works fine.
You should limit the number of partitions to 50. (The 81 mentioned above is not bad.) The problem is that "lots" of partitions introduces different inefficiencies; "too few" partitions leads to "why bother".
Note that almost always the optimal PK is different for a partitioned table than the equivalent non-partitioned table.
Note that I disagree with partitioning on venue_id since it is so easy to put that column at the start of the PK instead.
Analysis
Assuming you search for a single venue_id and use my suggested partitioning & PK, here's how the SELECT performs:
Filter on the date range. This is likely to limit the activity to a single partition.
Drill into the data's BTree for that one partition to find the one venue_id.
Hopscotch through the data from there, landing on the desired zone_ids.
For each, further filter based the date.
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 am collecting about 3 - 6 millions lines of stock data per day and storing it in a MySQL database.
All of the data is coming from Interactive Brokers every piece of information comes with these five fields: Symbol, Date, Time, Value and Type (type being information on what type of data I am receiving such as price, volume etc)
Here is my create table statement. idticks is just my unique key but I almost never am able to use it in queries.
CREATE TABLE `ticks` (
`idticks` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`symbol` varchar(30) NOT NULL,
`date` int(11) NOT NULL,
`time` int(11) NOT NULL,
`value` double NOT NULL,
`type` double NOT NULL,
KEY `idticks` (`idticks`),
KEY `symbol` (`symbol`),
KEY `date` (`date`),
KEY `idx_ticks_symbol_date` (`symbol`,`date`),
KEY `idx_ticks_type` (`type`),
KEY `idx_ticks_date_type` (`date`,`type`),
KEY `idx_ticks_date_symbol_type` (`date`,`symbol`,`type`),
KEY `idx_ticks_symbol_date_time_type` (`symbol`,`date`,`time`,`type`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=13533258 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
/*!50100 PARTITION BY KEY (`date`)
PARTITIONS 1 */;
As you can see, I have no idea what I am doing because I just keep on creating indexes to make my queries go faster.
Right now the data is being stored on a rather slow computer for testing purposes so I understand that my queries are not nearly as fast as they could be (I have a 6 core, 64gig of ram, SSD machine arriving tomorrow which should help significantly)
That being said, I am running queries like this one
select time, value from ticks where symbol = "AAPL" AND date = 20150522 and type = 8 order by time asc
The query above, if I do not limit it, returns 12928 records for one of my test days and takes 10.2 seconds if I do it from cleared cache.
I am doing lots of graphing and eventually would like to be able to just query the data as I need to it graph. Right now I haven't noticed a lot of difference in speed between getting part of a days worth of data vs just getting the entire day's. It would be cool to have those queries respond fast enough that there is barely any delay when I moving to the next day/screen whatever.
Another query I am using for usability of a program I am writing to interact with the data include
String query = "select distinct `date` from ticks where symbol = '" + symbol + "' order by `date` desc";
But most of my need is the ability to pull a certain type of data from a certain day for a certain symbol like my first query.
I've googled all over the place and I think I understand that creating tons of indexes makes the database bigger and slows down the input speed (I get about 300 pieces of information per second on a busy day). Should I just index each column individually?
I am willing to throw more harddrives at things if it means responsive interface.
Basically, my questions relate to the creation/altering of my table. Based on the above query, can you think of anything I could do to make that faster? Or an indexing system that would help me out? Is InnoDB even the right engine? I tried googling this vs MyISam and after a couple of hours of this, I still wasn't sure.
Thanks :)
Combine date and time into a DATETIME field
Assuming Price and Volume always come in together, put them together (2 columns) and get rid if type.
Get rid of the AUTO_INCREMENT; change to PRIMARY KEY(symbol, datetime)
Get rid of any indexes that are the left part of some other index.
Once you are using DATETIME, use date ranges to find everything in a single date (if you need such). Do not use DATE(datetime) = '...', performance will be terrible.
Symbol can probably be ascii, not utf8.
Use InnoDB, the clustering of the Primary Key can be beneficial.
Do you expect to collect (and use) more data than will fit in innodb_buffer_pool_size? If so, we need to discuss your SELECTs and look into PARTITIONing.
Make those changes, then come back for more advice/abuse.
You're creating a historical database, so MyISAM would work as well as InnoDB. InnoDB is a transactional relational database, and is better suited for relational databases with multiple tables that must remain synchronized.
Your Stock table looks like this.
Stock
-----
Stock ID (idticks)
Symbol
Date
Time
Value
Type
It would be better if you combine the date and time into a time stamp column, and unpack the types like this.
Stock
-----
Stock ID
Symbol
Time Stamp
Volume
Open
Close
Bid
Ask
...
This makes it easier for the database to return rows for a query on a particular type, like the close value.
As far as indexes, you can create as many indexes as you want. You're adding (inserting) information, so the increased time to add information is offset by the decreased time to query the information.
I'd have a primary index on Stock ID, and a unique index on Symbol and Time Stamp descending. You could also have indexes on the values you query most often, like Close.
Hey I have a very slow MySQL query. I'm sure all I need to do is add the correct index but all the things I try don't work.
The query is:
SELECT DATE(DateTime) as 'SpeedDate', avg(LoadTime) as 'LoadTime'
FROM SpeedMonitor
GROUP BY Date(DateTime);
The Explain for the query is:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE SpeedMonitor ALL 7259978 Using temporary; Using filesort
And the table structure is:
CREATE TABLE `SpeedMonitor` (
`SMID` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`DateTime` datetime NOT NULL,
`LoadTime` double unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`SMID`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=7258294 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
You're just asking for two columns in your query, so indexes could/should go there:
DateTime
LoadTime
Another way to speed your query up could be split DateTime field in two: date and time.
This way db can group directly on date field instead of calculating DATE(...).
EDITED:
If you prefer using a trigger, create a new column(DATE) and call it newdate, and try with this (I can't try it now to see if it's correct):
CREATE TRIGGER upd_check BEFORE INSERT ON SpeedMonitor
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
SET NEW.newdate=DATE(NEW.DateTime);
END
EDITED AGAIN:
I've just created a db with the same table speedmonitor filled with about 900,000 records.
Then I run the query SELECT newdate,AVG(LoadTime) loadtime FROM speedmonitor GROUP BY newdate and it took about 100s!!
Removing index on newdate field (and clearing cache using RESET QUERY CACHE and FLUSH TABLES), the same query took 0.6s!!!
Just for comparison: query SELECT DATE(DateTime),AVG(LoadTime) loadtime FROM speedmonitor GROUP BY DATE(DateTime) took 0.9s.
So I suppose that the index on newdate is not good: remove it.
I'm going to add as many records as I can now and test two queries again.
FINAL EDIT:
Removing indexes on newdate and DateTime columns, having 8mln records on speedmonitor table, here are results:
selecting and grouping on newdate column: 7.5s
selecting and grouping on DATE(DateTime) field: 13.7s
I think it's a good speedup.
Time is taken executing query inside mysql command prompt.
The problem is that you're using a function in your GROUP BY clause, so MySQL has to evaluate the expression Date(DateTime) on every record before it can group the results. I'd suggest adding a calculated field for Date(DateTime), which you could then index and see if that helps your performance.
I hope you'll permit me to point out that before you put a table into production with millions of records you should seriously consider how that data is going to be used and plan accordingly.
What is happening right now is that your query cannot use any indexes and hence scans the entire table building a response. Not the fastest way to work with relatively large tables.
You have some things to consider if you want to get to a better state:
How fast is it collecting data?
How much history do you need?
How granular are your reporting requirements?
Are you able to suspend logging to make table changes?
If the answer is "No" to the last question you could always create a new table/solution and start writing records there... importing in old data if/as needed.
Reporting granularity is important as you could, for example, compress a day's worth of data into 24 records. Load the current day into an index free loading table and then process it the next day into per hour averages. Name each loading table based on the sample date and you can delete old tables as processed.
Of course, hourly may not be fine grained enough.
Depending on your retention needs you might want to consider some type of partitioned storage. This can let you query against subsets of sample data and simply drop or archive old partitions when they are no long current enough to be relevant.
Anyhow, you seem to be on the edge of having some type of massive sampling, reporting and/or monitoring system (particularly if you were reporting on a variety of sites or pages with different characteristics). You may want to put some effort into designing this so it will fit your needs... ;)
I'm really struggling to get a query time down, its currently having to query 2.5 million rows and it takes over 20 seconds
here is the query
SELECT play_date AS date, COUNT(DISTINCT(email)) AS count
FROM log
WHERE play_date BETWEEN '2009-02-23' AND '2020-01-01'
AND type = 'play'
GROUP BY play_date
ORDER BY play_date desc;
`id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`instance` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`email` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`type` enum('play','claim','friend','email') NOT NULL,
`result` enum('win','win-small','lose','none') NOT NULL,
`timestamp` timestamp NOT NULL default CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
`play_date` date NOT NULL,
`email_refer` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`remote_addr` varchar(15) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `email` (`email`),
KEY `result` (`result`),
KEY `timestamp` (`timestamp`),
KEY `email_refer` (`email_refer`),
KEY `type_2` (`type`,`timestamp`),
KEY `type_4` (`type`,`play_date`),
KEY `type_result` (`type`,`play_date`,`result`)
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE log ref type_2,type_4,type_result type_4 1 const 270404 Using where
The query is using the type_4 index.
Does anyone know how I could speed this query up?
Thanks
Tom
That's relatively good, already. The performance sink is that the query has to compare 270404 varchars for equality for the COUNT(DISTINCT(email)), meaning that 270404 rows have to be read.
You could be able to make the count faster by creating a covering index. This means that the actual rows do not need to be read because all the required information is present in the index itself.
To do this, change the index as follows:
KEY `type_4` (`type`,`play_date`, `email`)
I would be surprised if that wouldn't speed things up quite a bit.
(Thanks to MarkR for the proper term.)
Your indexing is probably as good as you can get it. You have a compound index on the 2 columns in your where clause and the explain you posted indicates that it is being used. Unfortunately, there are 270,404 rows that match the criteria in your where clause and they all need to be considered. Also, you're not returning unnecessary rows in your select list.
My advice would be to aggregate the data daily (or hourly or whatever makes sense) and cache the results. That way you can access slightly stale data instantly. Hopefully this is acceptable for your purposes.
Try an index on play_date, type (same as type_4, just reversed fields) and see if that helps
There are 4 possible types, and I assume 100's of possible dates. If the query uses the type, play_date index, it basically (not 100% accurate, but general idea) says.
(A) Find all the Play records (about 25% of the file)
(B) Now within that subset, find all of the requested dates
By reversing the index, the approach is
> (A) Find all the dates within range
> (Maybe 1-2% of file) (B) Now find all
> PLAY types within that smaller portion
> of the file
Hope this helps
Extracting email to separate table should be a good performance boost since counting distinct varchar fields should take awhile. Other than that - the correct index is used and the query itself is as optimized as it could be (except for the email, of course).
The COUNT(DISTINCT(email)) part is the bit that's killing you. If you only truly need the first 2000 results of 270,404, perhaps it would help to do the email count only for the results instead of for the whole set.
SELECT date, COUNT(DISTINCT(email)) AS count
FROM log,
(
SELECT play_date AS date
FROM log
WHERE play_date BETWEEN '2009-02-23' AND '2020-01-01'
AND type = 'play'
ORDER BY play_date desc
LIMIT 2000
) AS shortlist
WHERE shortlist.id = log.id
GROUP BY date
Try creating an index only on play_date.
Long term, I would recommend building a summary table with a primary key of play_date and count of distinct emails.
Depending on how up to date you need it to be - either allow it to be updated daily (by play_date) or live via a trigger on the log table.
There is a good chance a table scan will be quicker than random access to over 200,000 rows:
SELECT ... FROM log IGNORE INDEX (type_2,type_4,type_result) ...
Also, for large grouped queries you may see better performance by forcing a file sort rather than a hashtable-based group (since if this turns out to need more than tmp_table_size or max_heap_table_size performance collapses):
SELECT SQL_BIG_RESULT ...