How does mysql return lines when there is no ORDER BY in the request?
What drives the natural order?
There can obviously be many different queries but let's say a simple
select column from table where date < NOW()
There is no natural predictable order when you don't specify one.
Be very careful with this. For all SQL there is no defined implied order. Never count on this. Even if you see a specific behavior at a point in time, that could change in a future release or even with the adding of an index. If you are expecting an order and counting on it, the specify it explicitly.
Problem is that "natural order" of results is often affected completely or partly by the access plan the DB engine uses. For instance, if you do a group by FieldA there is a good chance (not a guarantee) that the results will come back in FieldA sequence. If you do a very simple select chances are the results will be in the sequence they are stored in the database, which may or may not be the order of the IDs or the primary key. IF you don't specify the order it is giving the DB engine the option to do whatever is most convenient for it at the time based on how it got the results. So really does become unpredictable and open to change.
Wish I could explain better, but trying to convey the real randomness of the process form an observer viewpoint.
If the query is using an index, it will prefer the ordering of that index. Group by forces an ordering. This is why combining group by and order can have a performance penalty.
In your case, if you have an index on date, it will probably order by that, hard to say how it handles tie breaks though. For more information, as usual explain the query.
Of course there's a caveat to ordering on the index used as well. If the index is on an autoincremented field and the data was added with prespecified ids, you may find it prefers the order the data was added in.
Related
Here is the tutorial of GROUP_CONCAT() in GeeksForGeeks.
In "Queries 2", the Output is ascending. But there is no ORDER BY clause.
here is the picture of "Queries 2"
Could anyone can tell me why?
Any help would be really appreciated!
This is one of those oddballs where there is likely an implicit sort happening behind the scenes to optimize the DISTINCT execution by mysql.
You can test this yourself pretty easily:
CREATE TABLE t1 (c1 VARCHAR(50));
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES ('zebra'),('giraffe'),('cattle'),('fox'),('octopus'),('yak');
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(c1) FROM t1;
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT c1) FROM t1;
GROUP_CONCAT(c1)
zebra,giraffe,cattle,fox,octopus,yak
GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT c1)
cattle,fox,giraffe,octopus,yak,zebra
It's not uncommon to find sorted results where no ORDER BY was specified. Window Functions output are a good example of this.
You can imagine if you were tasked, as a human, to only pick distinct items from a list. You would likely first sort the list and then pick out duplicates, right? And when you hand the list back to the person that requested this from you, you wouldn't scramble the data back up to be unsorted, I would assume. Why do the extra work? What you are seeing here is a byproduct of the optimized execution path chosen by the mysql server.
The key takeaway is "byproduct". If I specifically wanted the output of GROUP_CONCAT to be sorted, I would specify exactly what I want and I would not rely on this implicit sorting behavior. We can't guess what the execution path will be. There are a lot of decisions an RDBMS makes when SQL is submitted to optimize the execution and depending on data size and other steps it needs to take in the sql, this behavior may work on one sql statement and not another. Likewise, it may work one day, and not another.
TL;DR Never omit an ORDER BY clause from a query if you rely on the order for something.
Does DISTINCT will automatically sort the result in MySQL?
No. NO! Be careful!
SQL is all about sets of rows. Without ORDER BY clauses, SQL queries return the rows of their result sets in an "unpredictable" order. "Unpredictable" is like random, but worse. If the order is truly random, you have a chance to catch any ordering problem when you're testing. Unpredictable means the server returns rows in any convenient order. This means everything works as you expect until some day in the future when it doesn't, without warning. (MySQL might start using some kind of parallel algorithm in the future.)
Now it is true that DISTINCT result sets from modestly sized tables are often generated using a sorting / deduplicating algorithm in the server. But that is an implementation detail. MySql and other table servers are complex enough that relying on implementation details is not wise. The good news: If you include an ORDER BY clause showing the same order as that methodology generates, usually performance is not changed.
SQL is declarative, not procedural. We specify what we want, not how to get it. It's probably the only declarative language most of us ever see, so it's easy to make the mistake of thinking it is procedural.
The problem is I need to do pagination.I want to use order by and limit.But my colleague told me mysql will return records in the same order,and since this job doesn't care in which order the records are shown,so we don't need order by.
So I want to ask if what he said is correct? Of course assuming that no records are updated or inserted between the two queries.
You don't show your query here, so I'm going to assume that it's something like the following (where ID is the primary key of the table):
select *
from TABLE
where ID >= :x:
limit 100
If this is the case, then with MySQL you will probably get rows in the same order every time. This is because the only predicate in the query involves the primary key, which is a clustered index for MySQL, so is usually the most efficient way to retrieve.
However, probably may not be good enough for you, and if your actual query is any more complex than this one, probably no longer applies. Even though you may think that nothing changes between queries (ie, no rows inserted or deleted), so you'll get the same optimization plan, that is not true.
For one thing, the block cache will have changed between queries, which may cause the optimizer to choose a different query plan. Or maybe not. But I wouldn't take the word of anyone other than one of the MySQL maintainers that it won't.
Bottom line: use an order by on whatever column(s) you're using to paginate. And if you're paginating by the primary key, that might actually improve your performance.
The key point here is that database engines need to handle potentially large datasets and need to care (a lot!) about performance. MySQL is never going to waste any resource (CPU cycles, memory, whatever) doing an operation that doesn't serve any purpose. Sorting result sets that aren't required to be sorted is a pretty good example of this.
When issuing a given query MySQL will try hard to return the requested data as quick as possible. When you insert a bunch of rows and then run a simple SELECT * FROM my_table query you'll often see that rows come back in the same order than they were inserted. That makes sense because the obvious way to store the rows is to append them as inserted and the obvious way to read them back is from start to end. However, this simplistic scenario won't apply everywhere, every time:
Physical storage changes. You won't just be appending new rows at the end forever. You'll eventually update values, delete rows. At some point, freed disk space will be reused.
Most real-life queries aren't as simple as SELECT * FROM my_table. Query optimizer will try to leverage indices, which can have a different order. Or it may decide that the fastest way to gather the required information is to perform internal sorts (that's typical for GROUP BY queries).
You mention paging. Indeed, I can think of some ways to create a paginator that doesn't require sorted results. For instance, you can assign page numbers in advance and keep them in a hash map or dictionary: items within a page may appear in random locations but paging will be consistent. This is of course pretty suboptimal, it's hard to code and requieres constant updating as data mutates. ORDER BY is basically the easiest way. What you can't do is just base your paginator in the assumption that SQL data sets are ordered sets because they aren't; neither in theory nor in practice.
As an anecdote, I once used a major framework that implemented pagination using the ORDER BY and LIMIT clauses. (I won't say the same because it isn't relevant to the question... well, dammit, it was CakePHP/2). It worked fine when sorting by ID. But it also allowed users to sort by arbitrary columns, which were often not unique, and I once found an item that was being shown in two different pages because the framework was naively sorting by a single non-unique column and that row made its way into both ORDER BY type LIMIT 10 and ORDER BY type LIMIT 10, 10 because both sortings complied with the requested condition.
I have the following query
SELECT *
FROM table_1
INNER JOIN table_2 ON table_1.orders = table_2.orders
ORDER BY table_2.purchasetime;
The above query result is indeterminate i.e it can change with different queries when the purchase time is of same value as per the MySQL manual itself.To overcome this we give sort ordering on a unique column and combine it with the regular sort ordering.
The customer does not want to see different results with different page refreshes so we have put in the above fix specifically for MySQL which is unnecessary and needs extra compound indexes for both asc and desc.
I am not sure whether the same is applicable for postgres.So far I have not been able to reproduce the scenario.I would appreciate if someone could answer this for postgres or point me in the right direction.
Edit 1 : The sort column is indexed.So assuming the disk data has no ordering, but in the case of index (btree data structure) a constant ordering might be possible with postgres ?
No, it will not be different in PostgreSQL (or, in fact, in any other relational database that I know of).
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/queries-order.html :
After a query has produced an output table (after the select list has been processed) it can optionally be sorted. If sorting is not chosen, the rows will be returned in an unspecified order. The actual order in that case will depend on the scan and join plan types and the order on disk, but it must not be relied on. A particular output ordering can only be guaranteed if the sort step is explicitly chosen.
Even if by accident you manage to find a PostgreSQL version and index that will guarantee the order in all the test you run, please don't rely on it. Any database upgrade, data change or a change in the Maya calendar or the phase of the moon can suddenly upset your sorting order. And debugging it then is a true and terrible pain in the neck.
Your concern seems to be that order by table_2.purchasetime is indeterminate when there are multiple rows with the same value.
To fix this -- in any database or really any computer language -- you need a stable sort. You can turn any sort into a stable sort by adding a unique key. So, adding a unique column (typically an id of some sort) fixes this in both MySQL and Postgres (and any other database).
I should note that instability in sorts can be a very subtle problem, one that only shows up under certain circumstances. So, you could run the same query many times and it is fine. Then you insert or delete a record (perhaps even one not chosen by the query) and the order changes.
In our application, we have a page that displays user a set of data, a part of it actually. It also allows user to order it by a custom field. So in the end it all comes down to query like this:
SELECT name, info, description FROM mytable
WHERE active = 1 -- Some filtering by indexed column
ORDER BY name LIMIT 0,50; -- Just a part of it
And this worked just fine, as long as the size of table is relatively small (used only locally in our department). But now we have to scale this application. And let's assume, the table has about a million of records (we expect that to happen soon). What will happen with ordering? Do I understand correctly, that in order to do this query, MySQL will have to sort a million records each time and give a part of it? This seems like a very resource-heavy operation.
My idea is simply to turn off that feature and don't let users select their custom ordering (maybe just filtering), so that the order would be a natural one (by id in descending order, I believe the indexing can handle that).
Or is there a way to make this query work much faster with ordering?
UPDATE:
Here is what I read from the official MySQL developer page.
In some cases, MySQL cannot use indexes to resolve the ORDER BY,
although it still uses indexes to find the rows that match the WHERE
clause. These cases include the following:
....
The key used to
fetch the rows is not the same as the one used in the ORDER BY:
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE key2=constant ORDER BY key1;
So yes, it does seem like mysql will have a problem with such a query? So, what do I do - don't use an order part at all?
The 'problem' here seems to be that you have 2 requirements (in the example)
active = 1
order by name LIMIT 0, 50
The former you can easily solve by adding an index on the active field
The latter you can improve by adding an index on name
Since you do both in the same query, you'll need to combine this into an index that lets you resolve the active value quickly and then from there on fetches the first 50 names.
As such, I'd guess that something like this will help you out:
CREATE INDEX idx_test ON myTable (active, name)
(in theory, as always, try before you buy!)
Keep in mind though that there is no such a thing as a free lunch; you'll need to consider that adding an index also comes with downsides:
the index will make your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements (slightly) slower, usually the effect is negligible but only testing will show
the index will require extra space in de database, think of it as an additional (hidden) special table sitting next to your actual data. The index will only hold the fields required + the PK of the originating table, which usually is a lot less data then the entire table, but for 'millions of rows' it can add up.
if your query selects one or more fields that are not part of the index, then the system will have to fetch the matching PK fields from the index first and then go look for the other fields in the actual table by means of the PK. This probably is still (a lot) faster than when not having the index, but keep this in mind when doing something like SELECT * FROM ... : do you really need all the fields?
In the example you use active and name but from the text I get that these might be 'dynamic' in which case you'd have to foresee all kinds of combinations. From a practical point this might not be feasible as each index will come with the downsides of above and each time you add an index you'll add supra to that list again (cumulative).
PS: I use PK for simplicity but in MSSQL it's actually the fields of the clustered index, which USUALLY is the same thing. I'm guessing MySQL works similarly.
Explain your query, and check, whether it goes for filesort,
If Order By doesnt get any index or if MYSQL optimizer prefers to avoid the existing index(es) for sorting, it goes with filesort.
Now, If you're getting filesort, then you should preferably either avoid ORDER BY or you should create appropriate index(es).
if the data is small enough, it does operations in Memory else it goes on the disk.
so you may try and change the variable < sort_buffer_size > as well.
there are always tradeoffs, one way to improve the preformance of order query is to set the buffersize and then the run the order by query which improvises the performance of the query
set sort_buffer_size=100000;
<>
If this size is further increased then the performance will start decreasing
I have only used SQL rarely until recently when I began using it daily. I notice that if no "order by" clause is used:
When selecting part of a table the rows returned appear to be in the same order as they appear if I select the whole table
The order of rows returned by a selecting from a join seemes to be determined by the left most member of a join.
Is this behaviour a standard thing one can count on in the most common databases (MySql, Oracle, PostgreSQL, Sqlite, Sql Server)? (I don't really even know whether one can truly count on it in sqlite). How strictly is it honored if so (e.g. if one uses "group by" would the individual groups each have that ordering)?
If no ORDER BY clause is included in the query, the returned order of rows is undefined.
Whilst some RDBMSes will return rows in specific orders in some situations even when an ORDER BY clause is omitted, such behaviour should never be relied upon.
Section 20.2 <direct select statement: multiple rows>, subsection "General Rules" of
the SQL-92 specification:
4) If an <order by clause> is not specified, then the ordering of
the rows of Q is implementation-dependent.
If you want order, include an ORDER BY. If you don't include an ORDER BY, you're telling SQL Server:
I don't care what order you return the rows, just return the rows
Since you don't care, SQL Server is going to decide how to return the rows what it deems will be the most efficient manner possible right now (or according to the last time the plan for this specific query was cached). Therefore you should not rely on the behavior you observe. It can change from one run of the query to the next, with data changes, statistics changes, index changes, service packs, cumulative updates, upgrades, etc. etc. etc.
For PostgreSQL, if you omit the ORDER BY clause you could run the exact same query 100 times while the database is not being modified, and get one run in the middle in a different order than the others. In fact, each run could be in a different order.
One reason this could happen is that if the plan chosen involves a sequential scan of a table's heap, and there is already a seqscan of that table's heap in process, your query will start it's scan at whatever point the other scan is already at, to reduce the need for disk access.
As other answers have pointed out, if you want the data in a certain order, specify that order. PostgreSQL will take the requested order into consideration in choosing a plan, and may use an index that provides data in that order, if that works out to be cheaper than getting the rows some other way and then sorting them.
GROUP BY provides no guarantee of order; PostgreSQL might sort the data to do the grouping, or it might use a hash table and return the rows in order of the number generated by the hashing algorithm (i.e., pretty random). And that might change from one run to the next.
It never ceased to amaze me when I was a DBA that this feature of SQL was so often thought of as quirky. Consider a simple program that runs against a text file and produces some output. If the program never changes, and the data never changes, you'd expect the output to never change.
As for this:
If no ORDER BY clause is included in the query, the returned order of rows is undefined.
Not strictly true - on every RDBMS I've ever worked on (Oracle, Informix, SQL Server, DB2 to name a few) a DISTINCT clause also has the same effect as an ORDER BY as finding unique values involves a sort by definition.
EDIT (6/2/14):
Create a simple table
For DISTINCT and ORDER BY, both the plan and the cost is the same since it is ostensibly the same operation to be performed
And not surprisingly, the effect is thus the same