Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Analysing logs is a major problem. If you have a legacy code and hundreds and thousands of queries running, you are bound to be confused by what to improve and where to improve and how much to improve because there is always a tradeoff between how much effort what you are going to put working on a certain optimization problem.
The first step then, is to analyse where we are going wrong. This can be achieved only by properly analysing the logs. Without that, you might not have an idea what exactly is going wrong with your application.
How do you analyze the MySQL logs then?
One Option: Percona Toolkit
Made some huge analysis of slow logs a few months ago..
And I find Percona Toolkit to be very useful. Using this toolkit you can easily make thorough analysis of your slow logs and make database optimization with less hassle.
To name a few useful functions for analysing SLOW LOGS:
pt-query-digest
can analyze queries from MySQL slow, general, and binary logs. (Binary logs must first be converted to text, see --type). It can also use SHOW PROCESSLIST and MySQL protocol data from tcpdump. By default, the tool reports which queries are the slowest, and therefore the most important to optimize. More complex and custom-tailored reports can be created by using options like --group-by, --filter, and --embedded-attributes.
Usage example pt-query-digest slow.log
pt-index-usage
Read queries from a log and analyze how they use indexes.
For more information...
Installation
Well, not everyone can make use of this tool, but if you can this should be very helpful.
Search with keywords, i.e., table names or column names.
While using your mobile app or a web application or a desktop application, you will know what page is taking more than expected time to load. Many-a-times, load time is impacted by the queries that run in the background. But that is only when we are making sync calls rather than async calls to fetch the data. So, when you know the page/area which is loading slowly, you will have a list of queries that run on that page while loading and a list of queries that are fired because you perform an action on that page. Once you know the queries, you will know the tables being used and the columns being fetched.
Now, if you are searching the slow query log and you have set very high standards for yourself and set the slow query time to 400 milliseconds, there are chances that your slow query log will be loaded, unless you are a genius. So, we do this simple thing:
grep 'table_name' /var/lib/mysql/mysql-slow.log
This poses more problems than it solves because all the important questions remain unanswered as this doesn't give the query time, query date etc. So, do this:
grep -B 3 'table_name' /var/lib/mysql/mysql-slow.log
-B x gives you x number of lines before the query.
We would need this because the 3 lines prior to the actual query contain all the information about the execution of the query - when was the query executed and how much time did it take!
An alternate:
grep -A 3 'query_user' /var/lib/mysql/mysql-slow.log
Number of slow queries during the day, hour-wise
grep Time mysql-slow.log | cut -d: -f1,2 | sort -r | uniq -c
A note here: you can either use sort -u or you can use sort | uniq -c but be sure that uniq won't work independently, it will only work when you pipe it with sort. Sorting should be done prior to uniq.
Using mysqldumpslow to analyse the log
Getting the top 10 underperforming queries.
mysqldumpslow -u root -p -s c -t 10
If you need to get into detailed log analytics, you should set up the ELK stack on your machine and connect your mysql to the log analytics setup. Or, you can use NewRelic for analysing MySQL logs.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions concerning problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Lately i have been tasked to delete and reinsert approximately 15 million rows on a myisam table that has about 150 million rows doing so while the table/db still remains available
for inserts/reads.
In order to do so i have started a process that takes small chunks of data
and reinserts it via insert select statements into a cloned table with the same structure with sleep in between the runs to not overload the server, skips over the data to be deleted and insert the replacement data.
This way while cloned table was in the build process (took 8+ hours) new data was coming in into the source table. At the end i had to just sync the tables with the new data that was
added in the 8+ hours and do a rename of the tables.
Everything was fine with exception of one thing. The cardinality
of the indexes on the cloned table is way off, and execution plans for queries executed against it are awful (went from few seconds to 30+ min for some of them).
I know that this can be fixed by running an Analyze table on it, but this takes also a lot of time (currently i'm running one on a slave server and is been executed for more then 10h now) and i can't afford to have this table offline to write while the analyze is performed. Also this will stress the IO of the server putting pressure on the server and slowing it down.
Can someone explain why building a myisam table via insert select statements results in a table which has such a poor internal statistics for indexes?
Also is there a way to incrementally build the table and have the indexes in good shape at the end?
Thanks in advance.
I have a mysql SELECT query which is fast (<0.1 sec) but only the first time I run it. It joins 3 tables together (using indices) and has a relatively simple WHERE statement. When I run it by hand in the phpmyadmin (always changing numbers in the WHERE so that it isn't cached) it is always fast but when I have php run several copies of it in a row, the first one is fast and the others hang for ~400 sec. My only guess is that somehow mysql is running out of memory for the connection and then has to do expensive paging.
My general question is how can I fix this behavior, but my specific questions are without actually closing and restarting the connection how can I make these queries coming from php be seen as separate just like the queries coming from phpmyadmin, how can I tell mysql to flush any memory when the request is done, and does this sound like a memory issue to you?
Well I found the answer at least in my case and I'm putting it here for anyone in the future who runs into a similar issue. The query I was running had a lot of results returned and MYSQL's query cache was causing a lot of overhead. When you run a query MYSQL will save it and its output so that it can quickly answer future identical requests quickly. All I had to do was put SQL_NO_CACHE and the speed was back to normal. Just look out if your incoming query is large or the results are very large because it can take considerable resources for MYSQL to decide when to kick things out.
I have a service that sits on top of a MySQL 5.5 database (INNODB). The service has a background job that is supposed to run every week or so. On a high level the background job does the following:
Do some initial DB read and write in one transaction
Execute UMQ (described below) with a set of parameters in one transaction.
If no records are returned we are done!
Process the result from UMQ (this is a bit heavy so it is done outside of any DB
transaction)
Write the outcome of the previous step to DB in one transaction (this
writes to tables queried by UMQ and ensures that the same records are not found again by UMQ).
Goto step 2.
UMQ - Ugly Monster Query: This is a nasty database query that joins a bunch of tables, has conditions on columns in several of these tables and includes a NOT EXISTS subquery with some more joins and conditions. UMQ includes ORDER BY also has LIMIT 1000. Even though the query is bad I have done what I can here - there are indexes on all columns filtered on and the joins are all over foreign key relations.
I do expect UMQ to be heavy and take some time, which is why it's executed in a background job. However, what I'm seeing is rapidly degrading performance until it eventually causes a timeout in my service (maybe 50 times slower after 10 iterations).
First I thought that it was because the data queried by UMQ changes (see step 4 above) but that wasn't it because if I took the last query (the one that caused the timeout) from the slow query log and executed it myself directly I got the same behavior only until I restated the MySQL service. After restart the exact query on the exact same data that took >30 seconds before restart now took <0.5 seconds. I can reproduce this behavior every time by restoring the database to it's initial state and restarting the process.
Also, using the trick described in this question I could see that the query scans around 60K rows after restart as opposed to 18M rows before. EXPLAIN tells me that around 10K rows should be scanned and the result of EXPLAIN is always the same. No other processes are accessing the database at the same time and the lock_time in the slow query log is always 0. SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS before and after restart gives me no hints.
So finally the question: Does anybody have any clue of why I'm seeing this behavior? And how can I analyze this further?
I have the feeling that I need to configure MySQL differently in some way but I have searched and tested like crazy without coming up with anything that makes a difference.
Turns out that the behavior I saw was the result of how the MySQL optimizer uses InnoDB statistics to decide on an execution plan. This article put me on the right track (even though it does not exactly discuss my problem). The most important thing I learned from this is that MySQL calculates statistics on startup and then once in a while. This statistics is then used to optimize queries.
The way I had set up the test data the table T where most writes are done in step 4 started out as empty. After each iteration T would contain more and more records but the InnoDB statistics had not yet been updated to reflect this. Because of this the MySQL optimizer always chose an execution plan for UMQ (which includes a JOIN with T) that worked well when T was empty but worse and worse the more records T contained.
To verify this I added an ANALYZE TABLE T; before every execution of UMQ and the rapid degradation disappeared. No lightning performance but acceptable. I also saw that leaving the database for half an hour or so (maybe a bit shorter but at least more than a couple of minutes) would allow the InnoDB statistics to refresh automatically.
In a real scenario the relative difference in index cardinality for the tables involved in UMQ will look quite different and will not change as rapidly so I have decided that I don't really need to do anything about it.
thank you very much for the analysis and answer. I've been searching this issue for several days during ci on mariadb 10.1 and bacula server 9.4 (debian buster).
The situation was that after fresh server installation during a CI cycle, the first two tests (backup and restore) runs smoothly on unrestarted mariadb server and only the third test showed that one particular UMQ took about 20 minutes (building directory tree during restore process from the table with about 30k rows).
Unless the mardiadb server was restarted or table has been analyzed the problem would not go away. ANALYZE TABLE or the restart changed the cardinality of the fields and internal query processing exactly as stated in the linked article.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
We deploy an (AJAX - based) Instant messenger which is serviced by a Comet server. We have a requirement to store the sent messages in a DB for long-term archival purposes in order to meet legal retention requirements.
Which DB engine provides the best performance in this write-once, read never (with rare exceptions) requirement?
We need at least 5000 Insert/Sec. I am assuming neither MySQL nor PostgreSQL
can meet these requirements.
Any proposals for a higher performance solution? HamsterDB, SQLite, MongoDB ...?
Please ignore the above Benchmark we had a bug inside.
We have Insert 1M records with following columns: id (int), status (int), message (140 char, random).
All tests was done with C++ Driver on a Desktop PC i5 with 500 GB Sata Disk.
Benchmark with MongoDB:
1M Records Insert without Index
time: 23s, insert/s: 43478
1M Records Insert with Index on Id
time: 50s, insert/s: 20000
next we add 1M records to the same table with Index and 1M records
time: 78s, insert/s: 12820
that all result in near of 4gb files on fs.
Benchmark with MySQL:
1M Records Insert without Index
time: 49s, insert/s: 20408
1M Records Insert with Index
time: 56s, insert/s: 17857
next we add 1M records to the same table with Index and 1M records
time: 56s, insert/s: 17857
exactly same performance, no loss on mysql on growth
We see Mongo has eat around 384 MB Ram during this test and load 3 cores of the cpu, MySQL was happy with 14 MB and load only 1 core.
Edorian was on the right way with his proposal, I will do some more Benchmark and I'm sure we can reach on a 2x Quad Core Server 50K Inserts/sec.
I think MySQL will be the right way to go.
If you are never going to query the data, then i wouldn't store it to a database at all, you will never beat the performance of just writing them to a flat file.
What you might want to consider is the scaling issues, what happens when it's to slow to write the data to a flat file, will you invest in faster disk's, or something else.
Another thing to consider is how to scale the service so that you can add more servers without having to coordinate the logs of each server and consolidate them manually.
edit: You wrote that you want to have it in a database, and then i would also consider security issues with havening the data on line, what happens when your service gets compromised, do you want your attackers to be able to alter the history of what have been said?
It might be smarter to store it temporary to a file, and then dump it to an off-site place that's not accessible if your Internet fronts gets hacked.
If you don't need to do queries, then database is not what you need. Use a log file.
it's only stored for legal reasons.
And what about the detailed requirements? You mention the NoSQL solutions, but these can't promise the data is realy stored on disk. In PostgreSQL everything is transaction safe, so you're 100% sure the data is on disk and is available. (just don't turn of fsync)
Speed has a lot to do with your hardware, your configuration and your application. PostgreSQL can insert thousands of record per second on good hardware and using a correct configuration, it can be painfully slow using the same hardware but using a plain stupid configuration and/or the wrong approach in your application. A single INSERT is slow, many INSERT's in a single transaction are much faster, prepared statements even faster and COPY does magic when you need speed. It's up to you.
I don't know why you would rule out MySQL. It could handle high inserts per second. If you really want high inserts, use the BLACK HOLE table type with replication. It's essentially writing to a log file that eventually gets replicated to a regular database table. You could even query the slave without affecting insert speeds.
Firebird can easily handle 5000 Insert/sec if table doesn't have indices.
Depending in your system setup MySql can easily handle over 50.000 inserts per sec.
For tests on a current system i am working on we got to over 200k inserts per sec. with 100 concurrent connections on 10 tables (just some values).
Not saying that this is the best choice since other systems like couch could make replication/backups/scaling easier but dismissing mysql solely on the fact that it can't handle so minor amounts of data it a little to harsh.
I guess there are better solutions (read: cheaper, easier to administer) solutions out there.
Use Event Store (https://eventstore.org), you can read (https://eventstore.org/docs/getting-started/which-api-sdk/index.html) that when using TCP client you can achieve 15000-20000 writes per second. If you will ever need to do anything with data, you can use projections or do the transformations based on streams to populate any other datastore you wish.
You can create even cluster.
If money plays no role, you can use TimesTen.
http://www.oracle.com/timesten/index.html
A complete in memory database, with amazing speed.
I would use the log file for this, but if you must use a database, I highly recommend Firebird. I just tested the speed, it inserts about 10k records per second on quite average hardware (3 years old desktop computer). The table has one compound index, so I guess it would work even faster without it:
milanb#kiklop:~$ fbexport -i -d test -f test.fbx -v table1 -p **
Connecting to: 'LOCALHOST'...Connected.
Creating and starting transaction...Done.
Create statement...Done.
Doing verbatim import of table: TABLE1
Importing data...
SQL: INSERT INTO TABLE1 (AKCIJA,DATUM,KORISNIK,PK,TABELA) VALUES (?,?,?,?,?)
Prepare statement...Done.
Checkpoint at: 1000 lines.
Checkpoint at: 2000 lines.
Checkpoint at: 3000 lines.
...etc.
Checkpoint at: 20000 lines.
Checkpoint at: 21000 lines.
Checkpoint at: 22000 lines.
Start : Thu Aug 19 10:43:12 2010
End : Thu Aug 19 10:43:14 2010
Elapsed : 2 seconds.
22264 rows imported from test.fbx.
Firebird is open source, and completely free even for commercial projects.
I believe the answer will as well depend on hard disk type (SSD or not) and also the size of the data you insert. I was inserting a single field data into MongoDB on a dual core Ubuntu machine and was hitting over 100 records per second. I introduced some quite large data to a field and it dropped down to about 9ps and the CPU running at about 175%! The box doesn't have SSD and so I wonder if I'd have gotten better with that.
I also ran MySQL and it was taking 50 seconds just to insert 50 records on a table with 20m records (with about 4 decent indexes too) so as well with MySQL it will depend on how many indexes you have in place.