I have the following mysql query
select points_for_user from items where user_id = '38415';
explain on the query returns this
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE items index NULL points_for_user_index 2 NULL 1000511 Using index
The problem is, shouldn't the number of rows be FAR less then the number of rows in the table because of the index?
user_id is the primary index, so I tried creating an index on just points_for_user and that still look through every row. An index on user_id AND points_for_user still searches every row.
What am I missing?
Thanks!
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `items` (
`capture_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`creator_user_id` bigint(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`user_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`accuracy` int(11) NOT NULL,
`captured_at` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT '2011-01-01 06:00:00',
`ip` varchar(30) NOT NULL,
`capture_type_id` smallint(6) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`points` smallint(6) NOT NULL DEFAULT '5',
`points_for_user` smallint(6) NOT NULL DEFAULT '3',
PRIMARY KEY (`capture_id`),
KEY `capture_user` (`capture_id`,`id`,`user_id`),
KEY `user_id` (`user_id`,`id`),
KEY `id` (`id`),
KEY `capture_creator_index` (`capture_id`,`creator_user_id`),
KEY `points_capture_index` (`points_for_user`,`creator_user_id`),
KEY `points_for_user_index` (`points_for_user`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=1008992 ;
select count(*) from items where user_id = '38415'
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE captures ref user_munzee_id user_munzee_id 4 const 81 Using index
the mysql optimizer try to use the best possible index during the query.
In your first query the optimizer is considering points_for_user_index the best choice, in fact the Extra column show the "Using index" status, this means a "Covering index".
The "Covering index" occurs when all fields required for a query (in your case select points_for_user from ... ) are contained in an index, this avoid the access to the full mysql data (.MYD) in favour of the direct index access (.MYI)
First of all you can try to rebuild the index tree analyzing table
ANALYZE TABLE itemes;
Note for very large tables:
ANALYZE TABLE analyzes and stores the key distribution for a table.
During the analysis, the table is locked with a read lock for InnoDB
and MyISAM. This statement works with InnoDB, NDB, and MyISAM tables.
For MyISAM tables, this statement is equivalent to using myisamchk
--analyze.
If "the problem" persist and you want to bypass the optimizer choice you can explicit try to force the usage of an index
EXPLAIN SELECT points_for_user FROM items USE INDEX ( user_id ) WHERE user_id = '38415'
More details: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/index-hints.html
Cristian
Related
I have the following MySQL query which takes about 40 seconds on a linux VM:
SELECT
* FROM `clients_event_log`
WHERE
`ex_long` = 1475461 AND
`type` in (2, 1) AND NOT
(
(category=1 AND error=-2147212542) OR
(category=7 AND error=67)
)
ORDER BY `ev_time` DESC LIMIT 100
The table has around 7 million rows, aprox. 800 MB in size and it has indexes on all the fields used in the WHERE and ORDER BY clauses.
Now if I change the query in such a way that the ordering is done in an outer SELECT, everything works much faster (around 100ms):
SELECT res.* FROM
(
SELECT * FROM `clients_event_log`
WHERE
`ex_long` = 1475461 AND
`type` in (2, 1) AND NOT
(
(category=1 AND error=-2147212542) OR
(category=7 AND error=67)
)
) AS res
ORDER BY res.ev_time DESC LIMIT 0, 100
Do you have any idea why the first query takes such a long time? Thank you.
Later Update:
1st Query EXPLAIN:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE clients_event_log index category,ex_long,type,error,categ_error ev_time 4 NULL 5636 Using where
2nd Query EXPLAIN:
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 PRIMARY <derived2> system NULL NULL NULL NULL 1
2 DERIVED clients_event_log ref category,ex_long,type,error,categ_error ex_long 5 131264 Using where
Table definition:
CREATE TABLE `clients_event_log` (
`ev_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`type` int(6) NOT NULL,
`ev_time` int(11) NOT NULL,
`category` smallint(6) NOT NULL,
`error` int(11) NOT NULL,
`ev_text` varchar(1024) DEFAULT NULL,
`userid` varchar(20) DEFAULT NULL,
`ex_long` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`client_ex_long` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`ex_text` varchar(1024) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`ev_id`),
KEY `category` (`category`),
KEY `ex_long` (`ex_long`),
KEY `type` (`type`),
KEY `ev_time` (`ev_time`),
KEY `error` (`error`),
KEY `categ_error` (`category`,`error`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
I ended up using the second query (inner SELECT) because the MySQL optimiser decided to always use the ev_time index even if I tried multiple versions of a composite index containing the columns in the WHERE and ORDER BY clauses.
Using force index (ex_long) also worked.
The MySQL version was 5.5.38
Thank you.
Add these
INDEX(ev_long, ev_time),
INDEX(ev_long, type)
and use the first format of the query and let the optimizer decide which is better based on the statistics.
I have this query:
SELECT `variationID`, count(DISTINCT(`userID`))
FROM data WHERE `testID` = XXXX AND `visit` = 1 GROUP BY `variationID`
;
that takes a lot of time to query.How I can speed up the query.
select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows
filtered Extra SIMPLE data
ref dc3_testIDPage,dc3_testIDvarIDPage,user_test_varID_url
dc3_testIDvarIDPage 8 const 33106102 100.00 Using where
This is the output of the create table:
CREATE TABLE `data` (
`id` bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`userID` bigint(17) NOT NULL,
`testID` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`variationID` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`url` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`time` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`visit` bigint(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
`isTestPage` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`testID`),
KEY `url` (`url`),
KEY `dc3_testIDPage` (`testID`,`url`),
KEY `dc3_testIDvarIDPage` (`testID`,`variationID`,`url`),
KEY `user_test_url` (`userID`,`testID`,`url`),
KEY `user_test_varID_url` (`userID`,`testID`,`variationID`,`url`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=67153224 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
The easiest thing you can do to speed up your query is to make sure you are not doing full table scans. All the columns in your where clause should appear in indexes. So in your case testID and visit should have indexes and even better you can create a single index with both testID and visit. If visit is a true/false boolean that won't help narrow the index search much but testID certainly will.
Create index documentation is here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/create-index.html
Based on the create table you have id and testID are in a single primary key. Add a new key or index that only has testID in it. That should help quite a bit. Since it looks like visit is not a boolean adding an index with both visit and testID will give you the best performance boost.
I have a query.
SELECT id_id FROM videos_member ORDER BY date_id DESC LIMIT 0,30
Here is the table
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `videos` (
`id_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`user_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`date_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id_id`),
KEY `date_id` (`date_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_unicode_ci AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ;
I keep getting this
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE videos ALL NULL NULL NULL NULL 342 Using filesort
Why isn't is using the index?
The table contains (or at least MySQL thinks it contains) 342 rows. This is tiny and likely fits into a single block of physical storage, which means it can be read in a single read operation. Using the index would require at least two read operations. So MySQL might be smart here and realize that reading the whole table at once is just more efficient than reading the index and then using it to access the table.
In other words if you insert more rows into the table the plan might change to using index.
I am performing a very simple select over a simple table, where the column that I am filtering over has an index.
Here is the schema:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tmp_inventory_items` (
`id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`transmission_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
`inventory_item_id` int(11) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
`material_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `transmission_id` (`transmission_id`)
KEY `inventory_item_id` (`inventory_item_id`),
KEY `material_id` (`material_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=21 ;
Here is the SQL:
SELECT * FROM `tmp_inventory_items` WHERE `transmission_id` = 330
However, when explaining the query, I see that the index is NOT being used, why is that (the table has about 20 rows on my local machine)?
id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE tmp_inventory_items... ALL transmission_id NULL NULL NULL 13 Using where
No key is being used even if I hint the mysql with USE INDEX(transmission_id)... this looks very strange to me (MySQL Version 5.5.28)
Because MySQL's algorithms tell it that preparing an index and using it would use more resources than simply performing the query without one.
When you feed query syntax to a DBMS, one of the things it does is attempts to determine the most efficient way to process the query (usually there are at least tens of ways).
If you want to, you can use FORCE INDEX(transmission_id) (documented here) which will inform MySQL that a table scan is assumed to be very expensive, but it's not recommended as to determine for 20 rows, it's just not valuable.
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/