Can anyone explain to me why there is a dramatic difference in performance between MySQL and SQL Server for this simple select statement?
SELECT email from Users WHERE id=1
Currently the database has just one table with 3 users. MySQL time is on average 0.0003 while SQL Server is 0.05. Is this normal or the MSSQL server is not configured properly?
EDIT:
Both tables have the same structure, primary key is set to id, MySQL engine type is InnoDB.
I tried the query with WITH(NOLOCK) but the result is the same.
Are the servers of the same level of power? Hardware makes a difference, too. And are there roughly the same number of people accessing the db at the same time? Are any other applications using the same hardware (databases in general should not share servers with other applications).
Personally I wouldn't worry about this type of difference. If you want to see which is performing better, then add millions of records to the database and then test queries. Database in general all perform well with simple queries on tiny tables, even badly designed or incorrectly set up ones. To know if you will have a performance problem you need to test with large amounts of data and many simulataneous users on hardware similar to the one you will have in prod.
The issue with diagnosing low cost queries is that the fixed cost may swamp the variable costs. Not that I'm a MS-Fanboy, but I'm more familiar with MS-SQL, so I'll address that, primarily.
MS-SQL probably has more overhead for optimization and query parsing, which adds a fixed cost to the query when decising whether to use the index, looking at statistics, etc. MS-SQL also logs a lot of stuff about the query plan when it executes, and stores a lot of data for future optimization that adds overhead
This would all be helpful when the query takes a long time, but when benchmarking a single query, seems to show a slower result.
There are several factors that might affect that benchmark but the most significant is probably the way MySQL caches queries.
When you run a query, MySQL will cache the text of the query and the result. When the same query is issued again it will simply return the result from cache and not actually run the query.
Another important factor is the SQL Server metric is the total elapsed time, not just the time it takes to seek to that record, or pull it from cache. In SQL Server, turning on SET STATISTICS TIME ON will break it down a little bit more but you're still not really comparing like for like.
Finally, I'm not sure what the goal of this benchmarking is since that is an overly simplistic query. Are you comparing the platforms for a new project? What are your criteria for selection?
Related
The query below takes about a minute to run on my MySQL instance (running on a fairly beefy machine with 64G memory, 2T disc, 2.30Ghz CPU with 8 cores and 16 logical, and the query is running on localhost). This same query runs in less than a second on a SQL Server database I have access to. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the SQL Server host or the DBA, etc.
select min(visit_start_date)
from visit_occurrence;
The table has been set to ENGINE=MyISAM and default-storage-engine=INNODB and innodb_buffer_pool_size=16G are set in my.ini.
Is there some configuration I could be missing that would cause this query to run so slowly on MySQL? How can I fix it?
I have a large number of tables and queries I will need to support so I would really like to be able to fix this issue globally rather than having to create indexes everywhere I have slow queries.
The SQL Server database does not seem to have an index on the column being queried as shown below.
EDIT:
Untagged MS Sql Server, I had tagged it hoping for the help of our MS Sql Server colleagues with information that Sql Server had some way of structuring data and/or queries that would make this type of query run faster on that platform v other such as MySql
Removed image of code to more closely conform with community standards
You never know if there is a magic go-faster button if you don't ask (ENGINE=MyISAM is sometimes kind of like a magic go-faster button for some queries in MySql). I'm kind of fishing for a potential hardware or clustering solution here. Is Apache Ignite a potential solution here?
Thanks again to the community for all of your support and help. I hope this fixes most of the issues that have been raised for this post.
SECOND EDIT:
Is the partitioning/sharding described in the links below a potential solution here?
https://user3141592.medium.com/how-to-scale-mysql-42ebd2841fa6
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/partitioning-overview.html
THIRD EDIT: A note on community standards.
Part of our community standards is explicitly to be welcoming, inclusive, and to be nice.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-very-welcoming-its-time-for-that-to-change/?fbclid=IwAR1gr6r2qmXs506SAV3H_h6H8LoFy3mlXucfa-fqiiEXMHUR3aF_tdoZGsw
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-be-nice-policy-code-of-conduct-updated-with-your-feedback).
The MS Sql Server tag was used here as one of the systems I'm comparing is MS Sql Server. We're really working with very limited information here. I have two systems: My MySql system, which is knowable as I'm running it, and the MS Sql Server running the same database in someone else's system that I have very little information about (all I have is a read only sql prompt). I am comparing apples and oranges: The same query runs well on the orange (MS Sql Server) and does not run well on the apple (My MySql instance). I'd like to know why so I can make an informed decision about how to get my queries to run in a reasonable amount of time. How do I get my apple to look like an orange? Do I switch to MS Sql Server? Do I need to deploy on different hardware? Is the other system running some kind of in memory caching system on top of their database instance? Most of these possibilities would require a non trivial amount of time to explore and validate. So yes, I would like help from MS Sql Server experts that might know if there are caching options, transactional v warehouse options, etc. that could be set that would make a world of difference, that would be magic go-fast buttons.
The magic go-fast button comment was perhaps a little bit condescending.
The picture showing the indexes was shown as I was just trying to make the point that the other system does not seem to have an index on the column being queried. I this case a picture was worth a thousand words.
If the table says ENGINE=MyISAM, then that is what counts. In almost all cases, this is a bad choice. innodb_buffer_pool_size=16G is not relevant except that it robs memory from MyISAM.
default-storage-engine=INNODB is relevant only when creating a table explicitly specifying the ENGINE=.
Are some of your tables MyISAM and some are InnoDB? How much RAM do you have?
Most performance solutions necessarily involve an INDEX. Please explain why you can't afford an index. It could turn that query into less than 10ms, regardless of the number of rows in the table.
Sorry, but I don't accept "rather than having to create indexes everywhere I have slow queries".
Changing tables from MyISAM to InnoDB will, in some cases help with performance. Suggest you change the engine as you add the indexes.
Show us some more queries, we can help you decide what indexes are needed. select min(visit_start_date) from visit_occurrence; needs INDEX(date); other queries may not be so trivial. Do not fall into the trap of "indexing every column".
More
In MySQL...
A single connection only uses one core, so more cores only helps when you have more connections. (Some tiny exceptions exist in MySQL 8.0.)
Partitioning rarely helps with performance; do use that without getting advice. (PS: BY RANGE is perhaps the only useful variant.)
Replication is for read-scaling (and backup and ...)
Sharding is for write-scaling. It requires a bunch of extra architectural things -- such as routing queries to the appropriate servers. (MariaDB has Spider and FederatedX as possible tools.) In any case, sharding is a non-trivial undertaking.
Clustering is for HA (High Availability, auto-failover, etc), while helping some with read and write scaling. Cf: Galera, InnoDB Cluster.
Hardware is rarely more than a temporary solution to performance issues.
Caching leads to potentially inconsistent results, so beware. Also, consider my mantra "don't bother putting a cache in front of a cache".
(I can advise further on any of these topics.)
Whether in MyISAM or InnoDB. or even SQL Server, your query
select min(visit_start_date) from visit_occurrence;
can be satisfied almost instantaneously by this index, because it uses a so-called loose index scan.
CREATE INDEX visit_start_date ON visit_occurrence (visit_start_date);
A query with an aggregate function like MIN() is always a GROUP BY query. But if the GROUP BY clause isn't present in the SQL statement, the server groups by the entire table.
You mentioned a query that can be satisfied immediately when using MyISAM. That's SELECT COUNT(*) FROM whatever_table. Behind the scenes MyISAM keeps table metadata showing the total number of rows in the table, so that query comes back right away. The transactional storage engine InnoDB doesn't do that. It supports so much concurrency that its designers didn't include the total row count in their metadata, because it would be wrong in so many circumstances that it wasn't worth the risk.
Index design isn't a black art. But it is an art informed by the kind of measurements we get from EXPLAIN (or ANALYZE or EXPLAIN ANALYZE). A basic truth of database-driven apps (in any make of database server) is that indexing needs to be revisited as the app grows. The good news: changing, adding, or dropping indexes doesn't change your data.
I was wondering if it is worth caching queries like:
SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 1
If not, then the same should also be the case for complex queries, since they will be cached by the DB cache anyways.
Would it ever make sense to cache a single DB query with Redis? Or would I only gain benefits from caching the results of multiple queries (e.g. an entire route)
Is Redis (in memory) faster than the DB cache (also in memory). In that case it would also make sense to cache single queries in Redis, but I assume DB and Redis cache should perform similarly.
Query results are worth caching if your app is likely to read it from cache instead of running the SQL query again. Or if you need the result more quickly than any SQL query can run.
Also the cost of an SQL query is not necessarily detrimental to your app performance. An SQL query like SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 1 is simple and efficient, being a primary key lookup of at most one row (assuming id is the primary key).
A complex query against large ranges of data can take a lot longer if you do it in SQL, so the relative benefit of reading the cached result will be greater.
But even a simple query run a million times per hour can be costly. If you run the query so frequently that it's holding back your app performance, a cache is a good strategy.
There are many variables, and they depend on your specific app behavior and constraints. There's no way someone can answer this for you.
How often does the data in the database change, making the cached copy out of date?
How efficient is the SQL query? Is it a simple query that will be pretty quick anyway, or is it a complex query that may take full seconds when you run the SQL version?
Is your app able to tolerate the time it takes to run the SQL query? Of course all apps say they want the results "as fast as possible" but that's not a measurable requirement. Is the SQL query fast enough?
How frequently do you run the query? At a certain scale, you need to use minor optimizations that would not be worth the time to code if the query is used infrequently.
There is a query that I want to optimize. To make some tests, I took a snapshot of the production database and create a new test instance of this database. Using the explain clause, I can see that the order of the joins differ between the two databases. The two databases have the same version (MySQL 5.6.19a), the same engine (InnoDB), the same schema, the same indexes, the same data, and are executed on the same material. The only difference, is that the production database use more memory (obviously) because it has more connections to it.
What may cause the join order to be different?
The memory usage?
The indexes are still building in the test instance?
The indexes of the production database are fragmented?
This is rare but quite feasible. InnoDB has "statistics" about each index on each table; it uses them to decide what it the best way to perform the query, including what order to look at the tables.
The statistics used to come from 8 'random' dives into the BTree to get a crude feel for the number of rows and the distribution of the data. The timing of the dives, the number '8', and the randomness have all been criticized, and gradually they have been improved. Only some improvements exist in 5.6.19.
Also the "cost" model of deciding how to perform the query has recently had an overhaul (5.7 / 8.0). 8.0 and MariaDB 10.0 have "histograms", which should lead to better query plan choices. Not yet implemented (as of 8.0.0): Noticing which blocks are already cached; this could picking a 'worse' index because more of it is cached, hence faster.
Because of the complexity of the optimization problem and the huge number of possibilities, there are even some cases where a newer version picks a worse query plan.
Even if you are running the same query on the same machine, the query plan could be different.
I presume you already knew that changing a constant in the query can change the query plan -- and do it for the better. I have seen the same query come up with 6 different query plans, presumably due to different constants. This can be annoying if you are doing EXPLAIN on a query found in the slowlog -- you can't be sure that that query plan was used when it was "slow".
We simply have to live with all this.
You could do ANALYZE TABLE to recompute the statistics. But that can make things worse or better, depending on the phase of the moon. It might even (coincidentally) make your two instances perform the query the same.
The real question is "did one server run your query significantly faster than the other?" (After accounting for caching, other activity, etc, etc.)
When both of two tables in a JOIN are being filtered (something in WHERE), it is very difficult for the Optimizer to decide. If there is also ORDER BY and LIMIT, it becomes even harder to decide.
If you would like to provide your SELECT, its EXPLAIN, and SHOW CREATE TABLE, we can discuss details. (But start a new question.)
I have a MySQL database with a few (five to be precise) huge tables. It is essentially a star topology based data warehouse. The table sizes range from 700GB (fact table) to 1GB and whole database goes upto 1 terabyte. Now I have been given a task of running analytics on these tables which might even include joins.
A simple analytical query on this database can be "find number of smokers per state and display it in descending order" this requirement could be converted in a simple query like
select state, count(smokingStatus) as smokers
from abc
having smokingstatus='current smoker'
group by state....
This query (and many other of same nature) takes a lot of time to execute on this database, time taken is in order of tens of hours.
This database is also heavily used for insertion which means every few minutes there are thousands of rows getting added.
In such a scenario how can I tackle this querying problem?
I have looked in Cassandra which seemed easy to implement but I am not sure if it is going to be as easy for running analytical queries on the database especially when I have to use "where clause and group by construct"
Have Also looked into Hadoop but I am not sure how can I implement RDBMS type queries. I am not too sure if I want to right away invest in getting at least three machines for name-node, zookeeper and data-nodes!! Above all our company prefers windows based solutions.
I have also thought of pre-computing all the data in a simpler summary tables but that limits my ability to run different kinds of queries.
Are there any other ideas which I can implement?
EDIT
Following is the mysql environment setup
1) master-slave setup
2) master for inserts/updates
3) slave for reads and running stored procedures
4) all tables are innodb with files per table
5) indexes on string as well as int columns.
Pre-calculating values is an option but since requirements for this kind of ad-hoc aggregated values keeps changing.
Looking at this from the position of attempting to make MySQL work better rather than positing an entirely new architectural system:
Firstly, verify what's really happening. EXPLAIN the queries which are causing issues, rather than guessing what's going on.
Having said that, I'm going to guess as to what's going on since I don't have the query plans. I'm guessing that (a) your indexes aren't being used correctly and you're getting a bunch of avoidable table scans, (b) your DB servers are tuned for OLTP, not analytical queries, (c) writing data while reading is causing things to slow down greatly, (d) working with strings just sucks and (e) you've got some inefficient queries with horrible joins (everyone has some of these).
To improve things, I'd investigate the following (in roughly this order):
Check the query plans, make sure the existing indexes are being used correctly - look at the table scans, make sure the queries actually make sense.
Move the analytical queries off the OLTP system - the tunings required for fast inserts and short queries are very different to those for the sorts of queries which potentially read most of a large table. This might mean having another analytic-only slave, with a different config (and possibly table types - I'm not sure what the state of the art with MySQL is right now).
Move the strings out of the fact table - rather than having the smoking status column with string values of (say) 'current smoker', 'recently quit', 'quit 1+ years', 'never smoked', push these values out to another table, and have the integer keys in the fact table (this will help the sizes of the indexes too).
Stop the tables from being updated while the queries are running - if the indexes are moving while the query is running I can't see good things happening. It's (luckily) been a long time since I cared about MySQL replication, so I can't remember if you can batch up the writes to the analytical query slave without too much drama.
If you get to this point without solving the performance issues, then it's time to think about moving off MySQL. I'd look at Infobright first - it's open source/$$ & based on MySQL, so it's probably the easiest to put into your existing system (make sure the data is going to the InfoBright DB, then point your analytical queries to the Infobright server, keep the rest of the system as it is, job done), or if Vertica ever releases its Community Edition. Hadoop+Hive has a lot of moving parts - its pretty cool (and great on the resume), but if it's only going to be used for the analytic portion of you system it may take more care & feeding than other options.
1 TB is not that big. MySQL should be able to handle that. At least simple queries like that shouldn't take hours! Can't be very helpful without knowing the larger context, but I can suggest some questions that you might ask yourself, mostly related to how you use your data:
Is there a way you can separate the reads and writes? How many read so you do per day and how many writes? Can you live with some lag, e.g write to a new table each day and merge it to the existing table at the end of the day?
What are most of your queries like? Are they mostly aggregation queries? Can you do some partial aggregation beforehand? Can you pre-calculate number of new smokers every day?
Can you use hadoop for the aggregation process above? Hadoop is kinda good at that stuff. Basically use hadoop just for daily or batch processing and store the results into the DB.
On the DB side, are you using InnoDB or MyISAM? Are the indices on String columns? Can you make it ints etc.?
Hope that helps
MySQL is have a serious limitation what prevent him to be able to perform good on such scenarious. The problem is a lack of parralel query capability - it can not utilize multiple CPUs in the single query.
Hadoop has an RDMBS like addition called Hive. It is application capable of translate your queries in Hive QL (sql like engine) into the MapReduce jobs. Since it is actually small adition on top of Hadoop it inherits its linear scalability
I would suggest to deploy hive alongside MySQL, replicate daily data to there and run heavy aggregations agains it. It will offload serious part of the load fro MySQL. You still need it for the short interactive queries, usually backed by indexes. You need them since Hive is iherently not-interactive - each query will take at least a few dozens of seconds.
Cassandra is built for the Key-Value type of access and does not have scalable GroupBy capability build-in. There is DataStax's Brisk which integrate Cassandra with Hive/MapReduce but it might be not trivial to map your schema into Cassandra and you still not get flexibility and indexing capabiilties of the RDBMS.
As a bottom line - Hive alongside MySQL should be good solution.
I work on a big web application that uses a MySQL 5.0 database with InnoDB tables. Twice over the last couple of months, we have experienced the following scenario:
The database server runs fine for weeks, with low load and few slow queries.
A frequently-executed query that previously ran quickly will suddenly start running very slowly.
Database load spikes and the site hangs.
The solution in both cases was to find the slow query in the slow query log and create a new index on the table to speed it up. After applying the index, database performance returned to normal.
What's most frustrating is that, in both cases, we had no warning about the impending doom; all of our monitoring systems (e.g., graphs of system load, CPU usage, query execution rates, slow queries) told us that the database server was in good health.
Question #1: How can we predict these kinds of tipping points or avoid them altogether?
One thing we are not doing with any regularity is running OPTIMIZE TABLE or ANALYZE TABLE. We've had a hard time finding a good rule of thumb about how often (if ever) to manually do these things. (Since these commands LOCK tables, we don't want to run them indiscriminately.) Do these scenarios sound like the result of unoptimized tables?
Question #2: Should we be manually running OPTIMIZE or ANALYZE? If so, how often?
More details about the app: database usage pattern is approximately 95% reads, 5% writes; database executes around 300 queries/second; the table used in the slow queries was the same in both cases, and has hundreds of thousands of records.
The MySQL Performance Blog is a fantastic resource. Namely, this post covers the basics of properly tuning InnoDB-specific parameters.
I've also found that the PDF version of the MySQL Reference Manual to be essential. Chapter 7 covers general optimization, and section 7.5 covers server-specific optimizations you can toy with.
From the sound of your server, the query cache may be of IMMENSE value to you.
The reference manual also gives you some great detail concerning slow queries, caches, query optimization, and even disk seek analysis with indexes.
It may be worth your time to look into multi-master replication, allowing you to lock one server entirely and run OPTIMIZE/ANALYZE, without taking a performance hit (as 95% of your queries are reads, the other server could manage the writes just fine).
Section 12.5.2.5 covers OPTIMIZE TABLE in detail, and 12.5.2.1 covers ANALYZE TABLE in detail.
Update for your edits/emphasis:
Question #2 is easy to answer. From the reference manual:
OPTIMIZE:
OPTIMIZE TABLE should be used if you have deleted a large part of a table or if you have made many changes to a table with variable-length rows. [...] You can use OPTIMIZE TABLE to reclaim the unused space and to defragment the data table.
And ANALYZE:
ANALYZE TABLE analyzes and stores the key distribution for a table. [...] MySQL uses the stored key distribution to decide the order in which tables should be joined when you perform a join on something other than a constant. In addition, key distributions can be used when deciding which indexes to use for a specific table within a query.
OPTIMIZE is good to run when you have the free time. MySQL optimizes well around deleted rows, but if you go and delete 20GB of data from a table, it may be a good idea to run this. It is definitely not required for good performance in most cases.
ANALYZE is much more critical. As noted, having the needed table data available to MySQL (provided with ANALYZE) is very important when it comes to pretty much any query. It is something that should be run on a common basis.
Question #1 is a bit more of a trick. I would watch the server very carefully when this happens, namely disk I/O. My bet would be that your server is thrashing either your swap or the (InnoDB) caches. In either case, it may be query, tuning, or load related. Unoptimized tables could cause this. As mentioned, running ANALYZE can immensely help performance, and will likely help out too.
I haven't found any good way of predicting MySQL "tipping points" -- and I've run into a few.
Having said that, I've found tipping points are related to table size. But not merely raw table size, rather how big the "area of interest" is to a query. For example, in a table of over 3 million rows and about 40 columns, about three-quarters integers, most queries that would easily select a portion of them based on indices are fast. However, when one value in a query on one indexed column means two-thirds of the rows are now "interesting", the query is now about 5-times slower than normal. Lesson: try to arrange your data so such a scan isn't necessary.
However, such behaviour now gives you a size to look for. This size will be heavily dependant on your server setup, the MySQL server variables and the table's schema and data.
Similarly, I've seen reporting queries run in reasonable time (~45 seconds) if the period is two weeks, but take half-an-hour if the period is extended to four weeks.
Use slow query log that will help you to narrow down the queries you want to optimize.
For time critical queries it sometimes better to keep stable plan by using hints.
It sounds like you have a frustrating situation and maybe not the best code review process and development environment.
Whenever you add a new query to your code you need to check that it has the appropriate indexes ready and add those with the code release.
If you don't do that your second option is to constantly monitor the slow query log and then go beat the developers; I mean go add the index.
There's an option to enable logging of queries that didn't use an index which would be useful to you.
If there are some queries that "works and stops working" (but are "using and index") then it's likely that the query wasn't very good in the first place (low cardinality in the index; inefficient join; ...) and the first rule of evaluating the query carefully when it's added would apply.
For question #2 - On InnoDB "analyze table" is basically free to run, so if you have bad join performance it doesn't hurt to run it. Unless the balance of the keys in the table are changing a lot it's unlikely to help though. It almost always comes down to bad queries. "optimize table" rebuilds the InnoDB table; in my experience it's relatively rare that it helps enough to be worth the hassle of having the table unavailable for the duration (or doing the master-master failover stuff while it's running).