I have a table 'tbl' something like that:
ID bigint(20) - primary key, autoincrement
field1
field2
field3
That table has 600k+ rows.
Query:
SELECT * from tbl ORDER by ID LIMIT 600000, 1 takes 1.68 second
Query:
SELECT ID, field1 from tbl ORDER by ID LIMIT 600000, 1 takes 1.69 second
Query:
SELECT ID from tbl ORDER by ID LIMIT 600000, 1 takes 0.16 second
Query:
SELECT * from tbl WHERE ID = xxx takes 0.005 second
Those queries are tested in phpmyadmin.
And the result is query 3 and query 4 together return necessarily data.
Query 1 does the same jobs but much slower...
This doesn't look right for me.
Could anyone give any advice?
P.S. I'm sorry for formatting.. I'm new to this site.
New test:
Q5 : CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE tmptable AS (SELECT ID FROM tbl WHERE ID LIMIT 600030, 30);
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM tmptable); takes 0.38 sec
I still don't understand how it's possible. I recreated all indexes.. what else can I do with that table? Delete and refill it manually? :)
Query 1 looks at the table's primary key index, finds the correct 600,000 ids and their corresponding locations within the table, then goes to the table and fetches everything from those 600k locations.
Query 2 looks at the table's primary key index, finds the correct 600k ids and their corresponding locations within the table, then goes to the table and fetches whichever subset of fields are asked for from those 600k rows.
Query 3 looks at the table's primary key index, finds the correct 600k ids, and returns them. It doesn't need to look at the table at all.
Query 4 looks at the table's primary key index, finds the single entry requested, goes to the table, reads that single entry, and returns it.
Time-wise, let's build backwards:
(Q4) The table index allows lookup of a key (id) in O(log n) time, meaning every time the table doubles in size it only takes one extra step to find the key in the index*. If you have 1 million rows, then, it would only take ~20 steps to find it. A billion rows? 30 steps. The index entry includes data on where in the table to go to find the data for that row, so MySQL jumps to that spot in the table and reads the row. The time reported for this is almost entirely overhead.
(Q3) As I mentioned, the table index is very fast; this query finds the first entry and just traverses the tree until it has the requested number of rows. I'm sure I could calculate the precise number of steps it would take, but as a maximum we'll say 20 steps x 600k rows = 12M steps; since it's traversing a tree it would likely be more like 1M steps, but the precise number is largely irrelevant. The most important thing to realize here is that once MySQL has walked the index to pull the ids it needs, it has everything you asked for. There's no need to go look at the table. The time reported for this one is essentially the time it takes MySQL to walk the index.
(Q2) This begins with the same tree-walking as discussed for query 3, but while pulling the IDs it needs, MySQL also pulls their location within the table files. It then has to go to the table file (probably already cached/mmapped in memory), and for every entry it pulled, seek to the proper place in the table and get the fields requested out of those rows. The time reported for this query is the time it takes to walk the index (as in Q3) plus the time to visit every row specified in the index.
(Q1) This is identical to Q2 when all fields are specified. As the time is essentially identical to Q2, we can see that it doesn't really take measurably more time to pull more fields out of the database, any time there is dwarfed by crawling the index and seeking to the rows.
*: Most databases use an indexing data structure (B-trees for MySQL) that has a log base much higher than 2, meaning that instead of an extra step every time the table doubles, it's more like an extra step every time the table size goes up by a factor of hundreds to thousands. This means that instead of the 20-30 steps I stated in the example, it's more like 2-5.
Related
I have a table "data" which holds around 100,000,000 records.
I have added a new column to it "batch_id" (Integer).
On the application layer, I'm updating the batch_id in batches of 10,000 records for each of the 100,000,000 records (the batch_id is always the same for 10k).
I'm doing something like this (application layer pseudo code):
loop {
$batch_id = $batch_id + 1;
mysql.query("UPDATE data SET batch_id='$batch_id' WHERE batch_id IS NULL LIMIT 10000");
}
I have an index on the batch_id column.
In the beginning, this update statement took ~30 seconds. I'm now halfway through the Table and it's getting slower and slower. At the moment the same statement takes around 10 minutes(!). It reached a point where this is no longer feasible as it would take over a month to update the whole table at the current speed.
What could I do to speed it up, and why is MySQL Getting slower towards the end of the table?
Could an index on the primary key help?
Is the primary key automatically indexed in MySQL? The answer is Yes
So instead one index for batch_id will help.
The problem is without index the engine do a full table scan. At first is easy find 10k with null values, but when more and more records are updated the engine have to scan much more to find those nulls.
But should be easier create batch_id as an autonumeric column
OTHER OPTION: Create a new table and then add the index and replace old table.
CREATE newTable as
SELECT IF(#newID := #newID + 1,
#newID DIV 10000,
#newID DIV 10000) as batch_id,
<other fields>
FROM YourTable
CROSS JOIN (SELECT #newID :=0 ) as v
Insert auto increment primary key to existing table
Do you have a monotonically increasing id in the table? And all rows for a "batch" have 'consecutive' ids? Then don't add batch_id to the table, instead, create another table Batches with one row per batch: (batch_id (PK), id_start, id_end, start_time, end_time, etc).
If you stick to exact chunks of 10K, then don't even materialize batch_id. Instead, compute it from id DIV 10000 whenever you need it.
If you want to discuss this further, please provide SHOW CREATE TABLE for the existing table, and explain what you will be doing with the "batches".
To answer your question about "slow near the end": It is having to scan farther and farther in the table to find the NULLs. You would be better to walk through the table once, fiddling with each 10K chunk as you go. Do this using the PRIMARY KEY, whatever it is. (That is, even if it is not AUTO_INCREMENT.) More Details .
If I have a table TableA with 10k rows and I want to search all rows where id > 8000
When I use the SQL statement SELECT * FROM TableA WHERE id > 8000 to search them, what will MySQL do? Will it search 10k rows and return the 2k rows that match the condition or just ignore those 8k rows and return the 2k rows of data?
I also have a requirement to store a lot of data in the database per day and need to have a quick search for today records. Is one big table still the best method or are other solutions available?
Or would it be best to create 2 tables. 1 for the all records and 1 for today's records and when the new data coming, both table will insert but in the next day the record of the second table will delete.
Which method are better when comparing the speed of select or any other good method can for this case?
Actually i don't have the real database here now but i just worry
about which way/method can be better in that case
Updated information below at (8-12-2016 11:00)
I am using InnoDB but i will use the date as the search key and it is not a PK.
Returning 2k rows is just a extremely case for study but in the real case may returning (User Numbers * each record for that User), so if i got 100 user and they make 10 record in that day, i may need to returning 1k rows record.
My real case is i need to store all user records per days (maybe 10 records per 1 user) and i need to generate the rank for the last day records and the last 7 days records so i just worry if i just search the last day records in a large table, would it be slow or create another table just for save the last day records?
Are you fetching more than about 20% of the table? (The number 20% is inexact.)
Is the PRIMARY KEY on id? Or is it a secondary key?
Are you using ENGINE=InnoDB?
Case: InnoDB and PRIMARY KEY(id): The execution will start at 8000 and go until finished. This is optimal
Case: InnoDB, id is a secondary key, and a 'small' percentage of table is being fetched: The index will be used; it is a BTree and is scanned from 8000 to end, jumping over to the data (via the PK) to find the rows.
Case: InnoDB, id is secondary, and large percentage: The index will be ignored, and the entire table will be scanned ("table scan"), ignoring rows that don't match the WHERE clause. A table scan is likely to be faster than the previous case because of all the 'jumping over to the data'.
Other comments:
10K rows is "small" as tables go.
returning 2K rows is "large" as result sets go. What are you doing with them?
Is there further filtering that you could turn over to MySQL, so that you don't get all 2K back? Think COUNT or SUM with GROUP BY, FULLTEXT search index, etc.
More tips on indexes.
I'm a newbie using MySql. I'm reviewing a table that has around 200,000
records. When I execute a simple:
SELECT * FROM X WHERE Serial=123
it takes a long time, around 15-30 secs in return a response (with 200,000 rows) .
Before adding an index it takes around 50 seconds (with 7 million) to return a simple select where statement.
This table increases its rows every day. Right now it has 7 million rows. I added an index in the following way:
ALTER TABLE `X` ADD INDEX `index_name` (`serial`)
Now it takes 109 seconds to return a response.
Which initial approaches should I apply to this table to improve the performance?
Is MySql the correct tool to handle big tables that will have around 5-10 million of records? or should I move to another tool?
Assuming serial is some kind of numeric datatype...
You do ADD INDEX only once. Normally, you would have foreseen the need for the index and add it very cheaply when you created the table.
Now that you have the index on serial, that select, with any value other than 123, will run very fast.
If there is only one row with serial = 123, the indexed table will spit out the row in milliseconds whether it has 7 million rows or 7 billion.
If serial = 123 shows up in 1% of the table, then finding all 70M rows (out of 7B) will take much longer than finding all 70K rows (out of 7M).
Indexes are your friends!
If serial is a VARCHAR, then...
Plan A: Change serial to be a numeric type (if appropriate), or
Plan B: Put quotes around 123 so that you are comparing strings to strings!
Okay so here are my table schemas.
I have 2 tables. Say Table A and Table B. The primary key of Table A is PriKeyA bigint(50) and primary key of Table B is PriKeyB varchar(255). Both PriKeyA and PriKeyB contain the same type of data.
The relevant fields of Table A required for this problem are Last_login_date_in_A (date) and Table B is the primary key itself.
What I need to do is, get those PriKeyA's in A which are not there in Table B's PriKeyB column and the Last_login_date_in_A column should be greater than 30 days from the current date. Basically I need the difference of Table A and Table B along with a certain condition(which is the date in this problem)
Here is my SQL command
: SELECT A.PriKeyA from A
LEFT JOIN B ON A.PriKeyA = B.PriKeyB
WHERE B.PriKeyB IS NULL and DATEDIFF(CURRENTDATE,Last_login_date_in_A)>30;
However when I run this MySQL command, it takes about ridiculously long amount of time (About 3 hours). The size of Table A is 2,50,000 and Table B is 42,000 records respectively. I thought that this problem could arise due to the fact that PriKeyA and PriKeyB are different datatypes. So i also used the CAST(PriKeyB as unsigned) in the query. But that too didn't work. There was a marginal performance improvement.
What could be the possible problems? I've used Left Joins before and they never have taken this long.
The expense of the query appears to be for these reasons:
The SQL datatype for A's PK and B's PK aren't the same.
Table A probably doesn't have an index on Last_login_date_in_A
What this means is that ALL rows in table A MUST be examined one row at a time in order to determine if the > 30 days ago criteria is true. This is especially true if A has 2,500,000 rows (as evidenced by how you placed your commas in A's row count) instead of 250,000.
Adding an index on Last_login_date_in_A might help you out here, but will also slightly slow down insert/update/delete statement times for the table due to needing to update the additional index.
Additionally, you should utilize the documentation for explaining MySQL's actual chosen query plan for your query at: MySQL query plan documentation
Is there an implementation of SQL database allowing to select from a table the block of n following records -- in respect of the index -- starting from a specified index, with performance O(n + log tables_size)? But also allowing adding a record in O(log tables_size). If so, how to do it?
I'm probably a dreamer but, is it possible with MySQL?
If id is the primary key on a table, then the following will return in order of the time needed to fetch the records, plus the initial index seek:
select t.*
from t
where id >= SOMEID
order by id
limit <n>;
Adding a record consists of two parts. The first part is finding available space and the second part is inserting into the index. A b-tree index should require O(log table_size) for an insert. If the pages are full and you are only inserting at the end of the table, then finding the right page is constant time.
In other words, if I understand your question correctly, primary key clustered indexes do exactly what you are asking for.