I have a query that take 50 seconds
SELECT `security_tasks`.`itemid` AS `itemid`
FROM `security_tasks`
INNER JOIN `relations` ON (`relations`.`user_id` = `security_tasks`.`user_id` AND `relations`.`relation_type_id` = `security_tasks`.`relation_type_id` AND `relations`.`relation_with` = 3001 )
Records in security_tasks = 841321 || Records in relations = 234254
CREATE TABLE `security_tasks` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`itemid` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_type_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`Task_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`job_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`task_type_id` int(2) DEFAULT '0',
`name` int(2) DEFAULT '0'
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `itemid` (`itemid`),
KEY `relation_type_id` (`relation_type_id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=1822995 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE `relations` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_with` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`relation_type_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`manager_level` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`),
KEY `relation_with` (`relation_with`),
KEY `relation_type_id` (`relation_type_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=1082882 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
what can i do to make it fast, like 1 or 2 seconds fast
EXPLAIN :
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE relations ref user_id,relation_with,relation_type_id relation_with 5 const 169 Using where
1 SIMPLE security_tasks ref relation_type_id,user_id user_id 5 transparent.relations.user_id 569 Using where
UPDATE :
adding a composite key minimized the time to 20 seconds
ALTER TABLE security_tasks ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id) ; ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id) ; ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (relation_with) ;
The problem is when the relations table has large data for the selected user (relations.relation_with` = 3001 )
any ideas ?
Adjust your compound index slightly, don't do just two, but all three parts
ALTER TABLE relations ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id, relation_with)
The index does not just have to be on the joined columns, but SHOULD be based on joined columns PLUS anything else that makes sense as querying criteria is concerned (within reason, takes time to learn more efficiencies). So, in the case suggested, you know the join on the user and type, but are also specific to the relation with... so that is added to the same index.
Additionally, your security task table, you could add the itemID to the index to make it a covering index (ie: covers the join conditions AND the data element(s) you want to retrieve). This too is a technique, and should NOT include all other elements in a query, but since this is a single column might make sense for your scenario. So, look into "covering indexes", but in essence, a covering index qualifies the join, but since it also has this "itemid", the engine does not have to go back to the raw data pages of the entire security tasks table to get that one column. It's part of the index so it grabs whatever qualified the join and comes along for the ride and you are done.
ALTER TABLE security_tasks ADD INDEX (user_id, relation_type_id, itemid) ;
And for readability purposes, especially with long table names, it's good to use aliases
SELECT
st.itemid
FROM
security_tasks st
INNER JOIN relations r
ON st.user_id = r.user_id
AND st.relation_type_id = r.relation_type_id
AND r.relation_with = 3001
Related
hope you will allow me to pick your brains so I can gain some knowledge in the process.
We have 3 tables - data_product, data_issuer, data_accountbalance
CREATE TABLE `data_issuer` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`issuer_name` varchar(128) NOT NULL
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB
CREATE TABLE `data_product` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
`issuer_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `data_product_name_issuer_id_260fec65_uniq` (`name`,`issuer_id`),
KEY `data_product_issuer_id_d07fa696_fk_data_issuer_id` (`issuer_id`),
CONSTRAINT `data_product_issuer_id_d07fa696_fk_data_issuer_id` FOREIGN KEY
(`issuer_id`) REFERENCES `data_issuer` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB
CREATE TABLE `data_accountbalance` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`date` date NOT NULL,
`nominee_name` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
`beneficiary_name` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
`nominee_id` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
`account_id` varchar(16) NOT NULL,
`product_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`register_id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `data_accountbalance_date_product_id_nominee__7b8d2c6a_uniq` (`date`,`product_id`,`nominee_id`,`beneficiary_name`),
KEY `data_accountbalance_product_id_nominee_id_date_8ef8754f_idx` (`product_id`,`nominee_id`,`date`),
KEY `data_accountbalance_register_id_4e78ec16_fk_data_register_id` (`register_id`),
KEY `data_accountbalance_product_id_date_nominee_i_c3a41e39_idx` (`product_id`,`date`,`nominee_id`,`beneficiary_name`,`balance_amount`),
CONSTRAINT `data_accountbalance_product_id_acfb18f6_fk_data_product_id` FOREIGN KEY (`product_id`) REFERENCES `data_product` (`id`),
CONSTRAINT `data_accountbalance_register_id_4e78ec16_fk_data_register_id` FOREIGN KEY (`register_id`) REFERENCES `data_register` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB
When running the query below, the system takes about an hour to respond -
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE *
from data_product
INNER JOIN `data_issuer` ON (`data_issuer`.`id` = `data_product`.`issuer_id`)
INNER JOIN `data_accountbalance` ON (`data_accountbalance`.`product_id` = `data_product`.`id`)
LIMIT 100000000;
Both data_issuer and data_product only have few 100 records in them, but the data_accountbalance is huge with about 15,384,358 records.
The explain plan produced is below -
# id select_type table partitions type possible_keys key key_len ref rows filtered Extra
1 SIMPLE data_product ALL PRIMARY,data_product_issuer_id_d07fa696_fk_data_issuer_id 459 100
1 SIMPLE data_issuer eq_ref PRIMARY PRIMARY 4 pnl.data_product.issuer_id 1 100
1 SIMPLE data_accountbalance ref data_accountbalance_product_id_nominee_id_date_8ef8754f_idx,data_accountbalance_product_id_date_nominee_i_c3a41e39_idx data_accountbalance_product_id_date_nominee_i_c3a41e39_idx 4 pnl.data_product.id 493 100
Can someone help tune the query so it does not take an hour to run please? Appreciate any pointers you might have for me.
If your query is literally what you are showing there... Then thats the problem. It has no WHERE clause.
That query would literally return 15,384,358 results. As the two smaller tables are typical domain tables with NOT NULL relations all the way across, it will return 1 to 1 results for every row in data_accountbalance.
The actual time cost will probably be in creating a Massive temp table (tho I'm not sure about that). Just to download the entire database, all 3 tables, you could look into optimize your temp table MySQL config to possibly speed this up, OR preferably make it so that when you start executing the query that you can read the results as MySQL gets them ready (avoids a temp table). Alternatively, maybe your script that runs this query is trying to read the whole data set into memory, which takes a long time?
Is there a particular reason to download All the data? Usually you just download the data you are meaning to operate on. Or have MySQL do the grouping, summing, etc then return the answer you wanted based on All the data.
How many rows did you expect the query to return? If you are thinking something less than 15 million, then the answer is to add some kind of WHERE statement, or an aggregate function. Depending on what table and column in you use to reduce the result set, those columns will have to be indexed.
I hope this helps. :)
Sorry fot long post but this is really strange and I am close to give it up. 2 tables:
CREATE TABLE `endu_results` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`base_name` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
`base_nr` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`base_yob` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `endu_results_206a6355` (`base_name`),
KEY `endu_results_63df4402` (`base_nr`),
KEY `base_yob` (`base_yob`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=3424028 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;enter code here
and 2nd:
CREATE TABLE `endu_resultinterest` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`result_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `endu_resultinterest_3b529087` (`result_id`),
CONSTRAINT `result_id_refs_id_19e24435` FOREIGN KEY (`result_id`) REFERENCES `endu_results` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=48590 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
There are about 2mln records in endu_resultstable and less then 100K i endu_resultinterest. I have slow query:
explain select base_yob from endu_resultinterest
inner join endu_results
on (endu_results.id = endu_resultinterest.result_id)
order by endu_results.base_yob;
1 SIMPLE endu_resultinterest index endu_resultinterest_3b529087 endu_resultinterest_3b529087 4 NULL 47559 Using index; Using temporary; Using filesort
The question is: Why mysql is using this index: endu_resultinterest_3b529087 - but it should use base_yob - this is where sorting is requested ?
To test it further I have manaully created 2 additional identical tables endu_testresults and endu_testresultintrest and filled those with some records:
CREATE TABLE `endu_testresults` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`base_yob` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`base_name` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
`base_nr` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `endu_testresults_a65b2616` (`base_yob`),
KEY `endu_testresults_ba0ab39c` (`base_name`),
KEY `endu_testresults_d75ba04d` (`base_nr`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=20 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
So I go again for explain:
explain select base_yob from endu_testresultinterest
inner join endu_testresults
on (endu_testresults.id = endu_testresultinterest.result_id)
order by endu_testresults.base_yob;
and suprise suprise:
1 SIMPLE endu_testresults index PRIMARY endu_testresults_a65b2616 5 NULL 19 Using index
Index sort column base_yob (endu_testresults_a65b2616) is now used.
Why is that in one case index is used and in other I got 'using filesort;using temporary ? Does size matters ? I will try to copy records from one to another but do not get it with indexes. MySql is 5.6.16
Short answer: Because it is faster.
Long answer...
Your EXPLAINs seem to be incomplete -- I would expect 2 lines in each.
The first table is 20 (70?) times as big as the second. The optimizer picked the smaller table to start with. Hence it is initially doing 1/20th the amount of work. The sort that comes later (ORDER BY ...) is much less work than if it had to do 20 times as much work to start with.
The output is only 48K rows, correct? And that is how many rows in the 2nd table, correct?
Your test tables did not have the same bigger/smaller ratio, did they? Hence the different EXPLAIN.
I have a query that takes about 20 seconds, I would like to understand if there is a way to optimize it.
Table 1:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `sessions` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=9845765 ;
And table 2:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `access` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`session_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `session_id ` (`session_id `)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=9467799 ;
Now, what I am trying to do is to count all the access connected to all sessions about one user, so my query is:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM access
INNER JOIN sessions ON access.session_id=session.id
WHERE session.user_id='6';
It takes almost 20 seconds...and for user_id 6 there are about 3 millions sessions stored.
There is anything I can do to optimize that query?
Change this line from the session table:
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`)
To this:
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`, `id`)
What this will do for you is allow you to complete the query from the index, without going back to the raw table. As it is, you need to do an index scan on the session table for your user_id, and for each item go back to the table to find the id for the join to the access table. By including the id in the index, you can skip going back to the table.
Sadly, this will make your inserts slower into that table, and it seems like this may be a bid deal, given just one user has 3 millions sessions. Sql Server and Oracle would address this by allowing you to include the id column in your index, without actually indexing on it, saving a little work at insert time, and also by allowing you specify a lower fill factor for the index, reducing the need to re-build or re-order the indexes at insert, but MySql doesn't support these.
Having some real issues with a few queries, this one inparticular. Info below.
tgmp_games, about 20k rows
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tgmp_games` (
`g_id` int(8) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`site_id` int(6) NOT NULL,
`g_name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`g_link` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`g_url` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`g_platforms` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
`g_added` datetime NOT NULL,
`g_cover` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`g_impressions` int(8) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`g_id`),
KEY `g_platforms` (`g_platforms`),
KEY `site_id` (`site_id`),
KEY `g_link` (`g_link`),
KEY `g_release` (`g_release`),
KEY `g_genre` (`g_genre`),
KEY `g_name` (`g_name`),
KEY `g_impressions` (`g_impressions`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
tgmp_reviews - about 200k rows
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tgmp_reviews` (
`r_id` int(8) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`site_id` int(6) NOT NULL,
`r_source` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
`r_date` date NOT NULL,
`r_score` int(3) NOT NULL,
`r_copy` text NOT NULL,
`r_link` text NOT NULL,
`r_int_link` text NOT NULL,
`r_parent` int(8) NOT NULL,
`r_platform` varchar(12) NOT NULL,
`r_impressions` int(8) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`r_id`),
KEY `site_id` (`site_id`),
KEY `r_parent` (`r_parent`),
KEY `r_platform` (`r_platform`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 ;
Here is the query, takes 3 seconds ish
SELECT * FROM tgmp_games g
RIGHT JOIN tgmp_reviews r ON g_id = r.r_parent
WHERE g.site_id = '34'
GROUP BY g_name
ORDER BY g_impressions DESC LIMIT 15
EXPLAIN
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE r ALL r_parent NULL NULL NULL 201133 Using temporary; Using filesort
1 SIMPLE g eq_ref PRIMARY,site_id PRIMARY 4 engine_comp.r.r_parent 1 Using where
I am just trying to grab the 15 most viewed games, then grab a single review (doesnt really matter which, I guess highest rated would be ideal, r_score) for each game.
Can someone help me figure out why this is so horribly inefficient?
I don't understand what is the purpose of having a GROUP BY g_name in your query, but this makes MySQL performing aggregates on the columns selected, or all columns from both table. So please try to exclude it and check if it helps.
Also, RIGHT JOIN makes database to query tgmp_reviews first, which is not what you want. I suppose LEFT JOIN is a better choice here. Please, try to change the join type.
If none of the first options helps, you need to redesign your query. As you need to obtain 15 most viewed games for the site, the query will be:
SELECT g_id
FROM tgmp_games g
WHERE site_id = 34
ORDER BY g_impressions DESC
LIMIT 15;
This is the very first part that should be executed by the database, as it provides the best selectivity. Then you can get the desired reviews for the games:
SELECT r_parent, max(r_score)
FROM tgmp_reviews r
WHERE r_parent IN (/*1st query*/)
GROUP BY r_parent;
Such construct will force database to execute the first query first (sorry for the tautology) and will give you the maximal score for each of the wanted games. I hope you will be able to use the obtained results for your purpose.
Your MyISAM table is small, you can try converting it to see if that resolves the issue. Do you have a reason for using MyISAM instead of InnoDB for that table?
You can also try running an analyze on each table to update the statistics to see if the optimizer chooses something different.
This query:
explain
SELECT `Lineitem`.`id`, `Donation`.`id`, `Donation`.`order_line_id`
FROM `order_line` AS `Lineitem`
LEFT JOIN `donations` AS `Donation`
ON (`Donation`.`order_line_id` = `Lineitem`.`id`)
WHERE `Lineitem`.`session_id` = '1'
correctly uses the Donation.order_line_id and Lineitem.id indexes, shown in this EXPLAIN output:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE Lineitem ref session_id session_id 97 const 1 Using where; Using index
1 SIMPLE Donation ref order_line_id order_line_id 4 Lineitem.id 2 Using index
However, this query, which simply includes another field:
explain
SELECT `Lineitem`.`id`, `Donation`.`id`, `Donation`.`npo_id`,
`Donation`.`order_line_id`
FROM `order_line` AS `Lineitem`
LEFT JOIN `donations` AS `Donation`
ON (`Donation`.`order_line_id` = `Lineitem`.`id`)
WHERE `Lineitem`.`session_id` = '1'
Shows that the Donation table does not use an index:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE Lineitem ref session_id session_id 97 const 1 Using where; Using index
1 SIMPLE Donation ALL order_line_id NULL NULL NULL 3
All of the _id fields in the tables are indexed, but I can't figure out how adding this field into the list of selected fields causes the index to be dropped.
As requested by James C, here are the table definitions:
CREATE TABLE `donations` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`npo_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`order_line_detail_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`order_line_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`created` datetime default NULL,
`modified` datetime default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `npo_id` (`npo_id`),
KEY `order_line_id` (`order_line_id`),
KEY `order_line_detail_id` (`order_line_detail_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=7 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
CREATE TABLE `order_line` (
`id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`order_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`npo_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL default '0',
`session_id` varchar(32) collate utf8_unicode_ci default NULL,
`created` datetime default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `order_id` (`order_id`),
KEY `npo_id` (`npo_id`),
KEY `session_id` (`session_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=23 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
I also did some reading about cardinality, and it looks like both the Donations.npo_id and Donations.order_line_id have a cardinality of 2. Hopefully this suggests something useful?
I'm thinking that a USE INDEX might solve the problem, but I'm using an ORM that makes this a bit tricky, and I don't understand why it wouldn't grab the correct index when the JOIN specifically names indexed fields?!?
Thanks for your brainpower!
The first explain has "uses index" at the end. This means that it was able to find the rows and return the result for the query by just looking at the index and not having to fetch/analyse any row data.
In the second query you add a row that's likely not indexed. This means that MySQL has to look at the data of the table. I'm not sure why the optimiser chose to do a table scan but I think it's likely that if the table is fairly small it's easier for it to just read everything than trying to pick out details for individual rows.
edit: I think adding the following indexes will improve things even more and let all of the join use indexes only:
ALTER TABLE order_line ADD INDEX(session_id, id);
ALTER TABLE donations ADD INDEX(order_line_id, npo_id, id)
This will allow order_line to to find the rows using session_id and then return id and also allow donations to join onto order_line_id and then return the other two columns.
Looking at the auto_increment values can I assume that there's not much data in there. It's worth noting that the amount of data in the tables will have an effect on the query plan and it's good practice to put some sample data in there to test things out. For more detail have a look in this blog post I made some time back: http://webmonkeyuk.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/what-makes-a-good-mysql-index-part-2-cardinality/