I'm new with mysql and am a little confused about what cardinality means, I read that it means the number or unique rows but I'd like to know what it does mean in this case, this is my table definition
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| revisado | varchar(10) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| total | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| busqueda | varchar(300) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| clave | bigint(15) | NO | | NULL | |
| producto_servicio | varchar(300) | NO | | NULL | |
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
the total of records right now is 13621
I have this query
SELECT clave, producto_servicio FROM buscador_claves2 WHERE busqueda = 'FERRETERIA' AND total = 2 AND revisado = 'APROBADO'
And this the index definition of the table
+------------------+------------+----------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+------------------+------------+----------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| buscador_claves2 | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 14309 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_busqueda | 1 | busqueda | A | 14309 | 255 | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_total | 1 | total | A | 3 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_revisado | 1 | revisado | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto1 | 1 | revisado | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto1 | 2 | total | A | 105 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto1 | 3 | busqueda | A | 14309 | 255 | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto2 | 1 | busqueda | A | 14309 | 255 | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto2 | 2 | total | A | 14309 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| buscador_claves2 | 1 | idx_compuesto2 | 3 | revisado | A | 14309 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | |
+------------------+------------+----------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
the query is taking idx_compuesto1 as the index to find the data, what means the cardinality in this case for the revisado, total and busqueda columns as part of the index idx_compuesto1? and why it takes idx_compuesto1 instead of idx_compuesto2, I can see the cardinality is different in both indexes
This is the output of the query explain
*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: buscador_claves2
type: ref
possible_keys: idx_busqueda,idx_total,idx_revisado,idx_compuesto1,idx_compuesto2
key: idx_compuesto1
key_len: 804
ref: const,const,const
rows: 1
Extra: Using where
I hope you can help me to understand better this info, thank you.
In MySQL, the value of the index cardinality column is the storage engine estimate for the number of unique values in that index. It is used to determine how well this index can be used during joins. Generally MySQL optimizer prefers the index with a higher cardinality, because it usually means it is able to filter down to fewer rows. The ideal scenario is for the value of cardinality to be always equal to SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT the_key)..., but in practice it is usually off by some relatively small margin due to the difficulty of accurately computing this during normal database operations in an efficient manner that does not disrupt database performance. The value will be more accurate immediately after ANALYZE TABLE. Being off on cardinality begins to matter when the optimizer can choose more than one key for a particular join, it makes a huge difference in performance which one gets chosen, and the cardinality estimates for those keys are sufficiently off to cause the optimizer to choose the wrong key. Those situations are relatively rare, but do happen. In that case, the problem can be solved either with ANALYZE TABLE or - if you are always 100% sure which key is better for the join - by explicitly making the optimizer use it with FORCE KEY in the query.
I am performing a simple select query to extract username from table logs(containing 54864 rows).
It took about 7.836s to retrieve data.
How can I speed up the performace???
SELECT username FROM `logs`
WHERE
logs.branch=1
and
logs.added_on > '2016-11-27 00:00:00'
On describing table,
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| username | char(255) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| fullname | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| package | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| prev_expiry | date | YES | | NULL | |
| recharged_upto | date | YES | | NULL | |
| payment_option | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| amount | float(14,2) | YES | | NULL | |
| branch | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| added_by | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| added_on | datetime | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| remark | text | YES | | NULL | |
| payment_mode | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| recharge_duration | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| invoice_number | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| cheque_no | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| bank_name | char(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| verify_by_ac | int(11) | YES | | 0 | |
| adjusted_days | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| adjustment_note | text | YES | | NULL | |
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
20 rows in set
On explaining query,
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+-----------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+-----------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | logs | ref | branch_index,added_on_index | branch_index | 5 | const | 37 | Using where |
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+-----------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
1 row in set
updated:: explaing query after adding composite index(branch_added_index )
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | logs | ref | branch_index,added_on_index,branch_added_index | branch_index | 5 | const | 37 | Using where |
+----+-------------+--------------------------+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
1 row in set
Add a composite key on branch,added_on so you cover all the WHERE conditions since you use AND.
ALTER TABLE logs ADD KEY(branch,added_on)
This should be much faster,also you can drop the branch_index key since the above index can replace it.You only return 37 rows from 54000 so the cardinality is OK.
ALTER TABLE logs DROP INDEX `branch_index`;
Or you can use index hints
SELECT username FROM `logs` USE INDEX (branch_added_index) WHERE
logs.branch=1
and
logs.added_on > '2016-11-27 00:00:00'
if your table's existing index is already used for other queries try adding new composite index like below
create index <indexname> on logs(branch,added_on)
create a composite index on 2 fields (branch, added_on) like:
ALTER TABLE `logs` ADD KEY idx_branch_added (branch, added_on);
This will be even faster, because it is "covering":
INDEX(branch, added_on, username) -- in exactly that order.
(And drop any indexes that are prefixes of this.)
Index Cookbook
"Cardinality" is rarely of importance. And EXPLAIN often gets the value wrong.
The EXPLAIN shows 5 for the size of branch -- does it really need to be NULLable? Will you have 2 billion branches? Consider using something smaller, such as the 1-byte TINYINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL (values 0..255).
Also, shrink the 255 to something reasonable.
When describing a table, please use SHOW CREATE TABLE; it is more descriptive. It might help to know the Engine, Charset, etc.
I have the following table (T) in Mysql:
+--------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| first | varchar(50) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| second | varchar(50) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| third | varchar(50) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| count | bigint(20) | NO | | NULL | |
+--------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
This table contains several million rows. I have created the following indices:
+-------+------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+-------+------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| T | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | first | A | 591956 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| T | 0 | PRIMARY | 2 | second | A | 67927032 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| T | 0 | PRIMARY | 3 | third | A | 271708128 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| T | 1 | SECONDARY | 1 | second | A | 398399 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| T | 1 | SECONDARY | 2 | third | A | 45284688 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| T | 1 | SEC | 1 | second | A | 4382389 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
+-------+------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
Searches of the type:
SELECT * FROM T WHERE first = "WHAT" AND third = "EVER";
and
SELECT * FROM T WHERE first = "WHAT" AND second = "EVER";
also usually fast (results are always obtained under 1 second). However the searches like:
SELECT * FROM T WHERE second = "WHAT" AND third = "EVER";
are very slow (usually more than 1 minute). I created the index SEC (see indices table), but that doesn't improve the results.
What index should I use to make these searches faster? (I haven't kept experimenting because the creation of one index takes around 5 hours)
MORE INFO: The table is static (i.e. I won't be adding any more rows - I am only interested in search speed), and disk space is not an issue.
Use additional indexes comprising of fields which match your queries. If the row combinations are unique then use primary indexes. These give quicker access than secondary indexes.
As the table is static - the number of indexes will not affect performance (any updates, deletions and insertions require updates to each index of a table).
So for quicker retrieval from this query create an index of second and third columns:
ALTER TABLE T ADD PRIMARY KEY (second, third);
Basically having some performance issues with queries, mainly to my largest table which holds call data.
The main query contains quite a few left joins & sub-selects, but in a scenario where I'm running a query where I expect back 1.3M calls to be returned, the query is just not doing it. Having to stop it at 7 minutes means there's definately a problem somewhere.
I've narrowed down the main query and tested the simplest sub-select join which is
SELECT
DateStart,
ID,
NumbID,
EffectiveFlag,
OrigNumber
FROM calls
WHERE
DateStart <= '2013-12-31'
AND DateStart >= '2013-01-01'
AND CallLength >= '00:00:00'
AND Direction = '1'
AND CustID IN (474,482,250,268,197,604,132,359,279,441,118,448,152,133,380,162,249,679,226,259,2450,2408,2451,2453,2439,2454,2444,2445,2452)
And even that query takes 4.5s - so when it's a sub-select in a query with other joins & sub-selected, I can imagine why the query as a whole is unusable.
The explain statement for the above query is
+----+-------------+-------+-------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+-------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | calls | range | idx_CustID,idx_DateStart,idx_CustID_DateStart,idx_CustID_TermNumber,idx_Direction | idx_CustID_DateStart | 7 | NULL | 1660009 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+-------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+---------+-------------+
The database schema of the calls table is
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
| ID | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| CustID | int(11) | NO | MUL | 0 | |
| CarrID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| TariID | int(11) | NO | MUL | 0 | |
| CarrierRef | varchar(30) | NO | MUL | | |
| NumbID | int(11) | NO | MUL | 0 | |
| VlviID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| VcamID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| SomeID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| VlnsID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| NGNumber | varchar(12) | NO | | | |
| OrigNumber | varchar(16) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| CLIRestrictedFlag | int(2) | NO | | NULL | |
| OrigLocality | varchar(11) | NO | MUL | | |
| OrigAreaCode | varchar(11) | NO | MUL | | |
| TermNumber | varchar(16) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| BatchNumber | varchar(10) | NO | MUL | | |
| DateStart | date | NO | MUL | 0000-00-00 | |
| DateClear | date | NO | | 0000-00-00 | |
| TimeStart | time | NO | | 00:00:00 | |
| TimeClear | time | NO | | 00:00:00 | |
| CallLength | time | NO | | 00:00:00 | |
| RingLength | time | NO | | 00:00:00 | |
| EffectiveFlag | smallint(1) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| UnansweredFlag | smallint(1) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| EngagedFlag | smallint(1) | NO | | NULL | |
| RecID | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| CreatedUserID | int(11) | NO | | 0 | |
| CreatedDatetime | datetime | NO | MUL | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | |
| Direction | int(1) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+-------------------+-------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
The indexes on the calls table are
+-------+------------+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+-------+------------+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| calls | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | ID | A | 23905312 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CustID | 1 | CustID | A | 1685 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_NumbID | 1 | NumbID | A | 37765 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_OrigNumber | 1 | OrigNumber | A | 5976328 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_OrigLocality | 1 | OrigLocality | A | 45019 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_OrigAreaCode | 1 | OrigAreaCode | A | 846 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_TermNumber | 1 | TermNumber | A | 232090 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_DateStart | 1 | DateStart | A | 4596 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_EffectiveFlag | 1 | EffectiveFlag | A | 2 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_UnansweredFlag | 1 | UnansweredFlag | A | 2 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_EngagedFlag | 1 | UnansweredFlag | A | 2 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_TariID | 1 | TariID | A | 110 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CustID_DateStart | 1 | CustID | A | 1685 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CustID_DateStart | 2 | DateStart | A | 919435 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_NumbID_DateStart | 1 | NumbID | A | 37765 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_NumbID_DateStart | 2 | DateStart | A | 5976328 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_RecID | 1 | RecID | A | 288015 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CarrierRef | 1 | CarrierRef | A | 7968437 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CustID_CallTermNumber | 1 | CustID | A | 1685 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CustID_CallTermNumber | 2 | TermNumber | A | 246446 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CreatedDatetime | 1 | CreatedDatetime | A | 771139 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_Direction | 1 | Direction | A | 2 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_VlviID | 1 | VlviID | A | 50539 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_SomeID | 1 | SomeID | A | 30 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_VcamID | 1 | VcamID | A | 64 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_VlnsID | 1 | VlnsID | A | 191 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_CarrID | 1 | CarrID | A | 4 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| calls | 1 | idx_BatchNumber | 1 | BatchNumber | A | 271651 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+-------+------------+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Something which I understand may be causing the performance, is the indexes on columns with a low cardinality. I know columns such as Direction which has a cardinality of 2 is actually probably worse of with an index in terms of performance, but that alone shouldn't be making the statement so slow.
In terms of the cardinality requirements to have a worthwhile index, is there a general cardinality percentage compared to total table records at which an index increases performance and when it reduces performance?
I understand that no one is going to be able to throw an answer at me that will change the query time from 4.5s to 0.01s, but any advice on either the query itself, the table schema, the indexes, or the hardware would be greatly appreciated.
Update:
#Sebas "could you please rerun the query AND explain plan without the part: AND CallLength >= '00:00:00' AND Direction = '1' please?"
+----+-------------+-------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+--------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | calls | range | idx_CustID,idx_DateStart,idx_CustID_DateStart,idx_CustID_TermNumber | idx_CustID_DateStart | 7 | NULL | 724813 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+-------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+---------+------+--------+-------------+
Is your "DateStart" a truncated datetime -- keep date only? If not, you may want to build one with truncated value (by day, or hour), and use int datatype, which will make the index much smaller for faster query.
Or, another way to optimize (golden rule #1 don't do it, #2 do't do it now).
If and only if your date and PK are sync in sequence, you can build a external index of Range of StartDate <=> ID (PK).
and using below pattern
SELECT #start:=ID_START FROM ANOTHER_TABLE WHERE StartDate='2013-01-01'
SELECT #end:=ID_END FROM ANOTHER_TABLE WHERE StartDate='2013-12-31'
SELECT * FROM calls WHERE ID BETWEEN #start and #end AND CustId in (xxxxx) ....
By using above pattern, Mysql will know if has to scan only a segment of table.
Like Darhazer said, you have way too many indexes, start by removing all of them and build them up again based on your needs.
For this specific query, create one INDEX with these fields in it:
DateStart
CallLength
Direction
CustID
Change AND Direction = '1' to AND Direction = 1 (remove the quotes, you're comparing an integer, not a string)
And see what this does to your query time. If this goes well, add the subquery, check it again with EXPLAIN, add the needed indexes and so on.
The best index that your query should be hitting is idx_CustID_DateStart. The IN statement is preventing that from happening. If the CustID list is from a table, I suggest JOIN it in, instead of enumerating.
I am not sure that the original query that takes more than 7 minutes, is written correctly when you are worried by a subquery which takes 5 seconds (hopefully it is not executed for each row). But anyway, if you want to speed up this one you should read something how indexes work. I would recommend this article to begin with.
Basically you have conditions on 4 fields, and on two fields those are range conditions. If you have read the article, you know that the index is effectively used until the first range condition is met. Though, the rest of the data in index can be used for index scanning. Thus, you need to choose which condition is better narrowing the resultset: on DateStart or on CallLength.
Anyway, you need a composite index that starts with (CustID, Direction .... My feeling is that a condition on the DateStart is better. So I would start with (CustID, Direction, DateStart, CallLength), and compare it with (CustID, Direction, DateStart), because the last field might not give a sufficient performance gain, but will take memory resources.
Though I still think, one should be sure that the rest of the query is written correctly when concentrating on a subquery. There might be a properer way to organize the query, so that this optimization would turn out irrelevant.
4.5s is not much for a 1.6m rows returned, I am pretty sure it's all spent on IO operations. Then there is hardly any space left for optimisation. You'd better present us your original query, may be we can help better.
What % of total those 1.6m makes? Indexes are good if they're used to return smallest part of dataset, but since their data access pattern with mrr is random reads, its sometimes more efficient using fullscan on a table. Surely it depends on how data has been added to the table and how space was allocated on disk.
Also you might find useful to monitor performance with MySQL performance schema, look here for details.
You have too much indexes. For example, you don't need a separate CustID Index, becuase it's the left-most in the CustID,DateStart. You have 2 indexes on UnansweredFlag. And do you really need all of those indexes? This not only slows down the inserts/updates, it also slows down the optimzier and may trick the optimizer to choose not-so-good index.
Now, on the specific query. You need to see what field or combination limits the query the most (as now it scans 1,6M rows!) and force it to use that index. So run SELECT COUNT(*) queries for each of the where clauses (direction, call length) with the DateStart specified (you'll always want to limit based on this). Maybe you just need to add the direction to the index.
Also, before MySQL 5.6, subqueries in the WHERE clause are not optimized, so maybe you should rewrite the entire query to use join instead of subselect, and not to optimize the particular query
I have the following simple MySQL query:
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE mainID
FROM tableName
WHERE otherID3=19
AND dateStartCol >= '2012-08-01'
AND dateStartCol <= '2012-08-31';
When I run this it takes 0.29 seconds to bring back 36074 results. When I increase my date period to bring back more results (65703) it runs in 0.56. When I run other similar SQL queries on the same server but on different tables (some tables are larger) the results come back in approximately 0.01 seconds.
Although 0.29 isn't slow - this is a basic part for a complex query and this timing means that it is not scalable.
See below for the table definition and indexes.
I know it's not server load as I have the same issue on a development server which has very little usage.
+---------------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| mainID | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| otherID1 | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| otherID2 | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| otherID3 | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| keyword | varchar(200) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| dateStartCol | date | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| timeStartCol | time | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| dateEndCol | date | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| timeEndCol | time | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| statusCode | int(1) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| uRL | text | NO | | NULL | |
| hostname | varchar(200) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| IPAddress | varchar(25) | YES | | NULL | |
| cookieVal | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| keywordVal | varchar(60) | NO | | NULL | |
| dateTimeCol | datetime | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+---------------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
+--------------------+------------+-------------------------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+--------------------+------------+-------------------------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| tableName | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | mainID | A | 661990 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_otherID1 | 1 | otherID1 | A | 330995 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_otherID2 | 1 | otherID2 | A | 25 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_otherID3 | 1 | otherID3 | A | 48 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_dateStartCol | 1 | dateStartCol | A | 187 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_timeStartCol | 1 | timeStartCol | A | 73554 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
|tableName | 1 | idx_dateEndCol | 1 | dateEndCol | A | 188 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
|tableName | 1 | idx_timeEndCol | 1 | timeEndCol | A | 73554 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_keyword | 1 | keyword | A | 82748 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_hostname | 1 | hostname | A | 2955 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_dateTimeCol | 1 | dateTimeCol | A | 220663 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tableName | 1 | idx_statusCode | 1 | statusCode | A | 2 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+--------------------+------------+-------------------------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Explain Output:
+----+-------------+-----------+-------+----------------------------------+-------------------+---------+------+-------+----------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | filtered | Extra |
+----+-------------+-----------+-------+----------------------------------+-------------------+---------+------+-------+----------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | tableName | range | idx_otherID3,idx_dateStartCol | idx_dateStartCol | 3 | NULL | 66875 | 75.00 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-----------+-------+----------------------------------+-------------------+---------+------+-------+----------+-------------+
If that is really your query (and not a simplified version of same), then this ought to achieve best results:
CREATE INDEX table_ndx on tableName( otherID3, dateStartCol, mainID);
The first index entry means that the first match in the WHERE is very fast; the same also applies with dateStartCol. The third field is very small and does not slow the index appreciably, but allows for the datum you require to be found immediately in the index with no table access at all.
It is important that the keys are in the same index. In the EXPLAIN you posted, each key is in an index of its own, so even if MySQL chooses the best index, the performances will not be optimal. I'd try and use less indexes, for they also have a cost (shameless plug: Can Indices actually decrease SELECT performance? ).
First try to add the right key. It seems like dateStartCol is more selective than otherID3
ALTER TABLE tableName ADD KEY idx_dates(dateStartCol, dateStartCol)
Second - please make sure you select only rows you need by adding LIMIT clause to the SELECT. This will should up the query. Try like this:
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE mainID
FROM tableName
WHERE otherID3=19
AND dateStartCol >= '2012-08-01'
AND dateStartCol <= '2012-08-31'
LIMIT 10;
Please also make sure that your MySQL tuned up properly. You may want to check key_buffer_size and innodb_buffer_pool_size as described in http://astellar.com/2011/12/why-is-stock-mysql-slow/
If this is a recurrent or important query then create a multiple column index:
CREATE INDEX index_name ON tableName (otherID3, dateStartCol)
Delete the non used indexes as they make table changes more expensive.
BTW you don't need two separate columns for date and time. You can combine then in a datetime or timestamp type. One less column and one less index.
The explain output shows it chose the dateStartCol index so you could try the opposite I suggested above:
CREATE INDEX index_name ON tableName (dateStartCol, otherID3)
Notice that the query's dateStartCol condition will still get 75% of the rows so not much improvement, if any, in using that single index.
How unique is otherID3? If there are not many repeated otherID3 you can hint the engine to use it.