MySQL index slowing down query - mysql

MySQL Server version: 5.0.95
Tables All: InnoDB
I am having an issue with a MySQL db query. Basically I am finding that if I index a particular varchar(50) field tag.name, my queries take longer (x10) than not indexing the field. I am trying to speed this query up, however my efforts seem to be counter productive.
The culprit line and field seems to be:
WHERE `t`.`name` IN ('news','home')
I have noticed that if i query the tag table directly without a join using the same criteria and with the name field indexed, i do not have the issue.. It actually works faster as expected.
EXAMPLE Query **
SELECT `a`.*, `u`.`pen_name`
FROM `tag_link` `tl`
INNER JOIN `tag` `t`
ON `t`.`tag_id` = `tl`.`tag_id`
INNER JOIN `article` `a`
ON `a`.`article_id` = `tl`.`link_id`
INNER JOIN `user` `u`
ON `a`.`user_id` = `u`.`user_id`
WHERE `t`.`name` IN ('news','home')
AND `tl`.`type` = 'article'
AND `a`.`featured` = 'featured'
GROUP BY `article_id`
LIMIT 0 , 5
EXPLAIN with index **
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------+---------+-------------------+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | t | range | PRIMARY,name | name | 152 | NULL | 4 | Using where; Using index; Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | tl | ref | tag_id,link_id,link_id_2 | tag_id | 4 | portal.t.tag_id | 10 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | a | eq_ref | PRIMARY,fk_article_user1 | PRIMARY | 4 | portal.tl.link_id | 1 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | u | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | portal.a.user_id | 1 | |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------+---------+-------------------+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
EXPLAIN without index **
+----+-------------+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | a | index | PRIMARY,fk_article_user1 | PRIMARY | 4 | NULL | 8742 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | u | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | portal.a.user_id | 1 | |
| 1 | SIMPLE | tl | ref | tag_id,link_id,link_id_2 | link_id | 4 | portal.a.article_id | 3 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | t | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | portal.tl.tag_id | 1 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
TABLE CREATE
CREATE TABLE `tag` (
`tag_id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`name` varchar(50) NOT NULL,
`type` enum('layout','image') NOT NULL,
`create_dttm` datetime default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`tag_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=43077 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
INDEXS
SHOW INDEX FROM tag_link;
+----------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+----------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| tag_link | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | tag_link_id | A | 42023 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tag_link | 1 | tag_id | 1 | tag_id | A | 10505 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| tag_link | 1 | link_id | 1 | link_id | A | 14007 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+----------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
SHOW INDEX FROM article;
+---------+------------+------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+---------+------------+------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| article | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | article_id | A | 5723 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| article | 1 | fk_article_user1 | 1 | user_id | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| article | 1 | create_dttm | 1 | create_dttm | A | 5723 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | |
+---------+------------+------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Final Solution
It seems that MySQL is just sorted the data incorrectly. In the end it turned out faster to look at the tag table as a sub query returning the ids.

It seems that article_id is the primary key for the article table.
Since you're grouping by article_id, MySQL needs to return the records in order by that column, in order to perform the GROUP BY.
You can see that without the index, it scans all records in the article table, but they're at least in order by article_id, so no later sort is required. The LIMIT optimization can be applied here, since it's already in order, it can just stop after it gets five rows.
In the query with the index on tag.name, instead of scanning the entire articles table, it utilizes the index, but against the tag table, and starts there. Unfortunately, when doing this, the records must later be sorted by article.article_id in order to complete the GROUP BY clause. The LIMIT optimization can't be applied since it must return the entire result set, then order it, in order to get the first 5 rows.
In this case, MySQL just guesses wrongly.
Without the LIMIT clause, I'm guessing that using the index is faster, which is maybe what MySQL was guessing.

How big are your tables?
I noticed in the first explain you have a "Using temporary; Using filesort" which is bad. Your query is likely being dumped to disc which makes it way slower than in memory queries.
Also try to avoid using "select *" and instead query the minimum fields needed.

Related

What index should increase performance of select query?

This is table structure:
+--------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| visitor_hash | varchar(40) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| uri | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| ip_address | char(15) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| last_visit | datetime | YES | | NULL | |
| visits | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| object_app | varchar(255) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| object_model | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| object_id | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | |
| blocked | tinyint(1) | NO | | NULL | |
+--------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
This is request:
SELECT `object_id`
FROM `visits_visit`
WHERE `object_model` = 'News'
GROUP BY `object_id`
ORDER BY COUNT( * ) DESC
LIMIT 0, 3
Time for response is ~77,63 ms.
CREATE INDEX resource_model ON visits_visit (object_model(100));
After this request the time for response increased to ~150ms.
How to improve performance for this case? Thank you.
UPDATED:
Answering to Michal Komorowski.
This is explain before index:
+----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | visits_visit | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 142938 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
+----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+--------+----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
And this is after index:
+----+-------------+--------------+------+----------------+----------------+---------+-------+-------+----------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------------+------+----------------+----------------+---------+-------+-------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | visits_visit | ref | resource_model | resource_model | 303 | const | 64959 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
+----+-------------+--------------+------+----------------+----------------+---------+-------+-------+----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
I don't know what gives me this information.
SELECT `object_id`
FROM `visits_visit`
WHERE `object_model` = 'News'
GROUP BY `object_id`
ORDER BY COUNT( * ) DESC
LIMIT 0, 3
78,85 ms before indexing and 365,59 ms after indexing.
Also i have index
CREATE INDEX resource ON visits_visit (object_app(100), object_model(100), object_id(100));
But i need this one, because in other select queries WHERE contains this three keys.
UPDATE:
I'm using django debug toolbar to test performance of requests.
UPDATE:
Query:
ANALYZE TABLE visits_visit;
Output:
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+
| Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text |
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **************.visits_visit | analyze | status | Table is already up to date |
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
UPDATE:
SHOW INDEXES FROM visits_visit;
Output:
+--------------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+--------------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| visits_visit | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 142938 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| visits_visit | 1 | visits_visit_0880babc | 1 | visitor_hash | A | 142938 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| visits_visit | 1 | visits_visit_5325a746 | 1 | ip_address | A | 142938 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| visits_visit | 1 | resource | 1 | object_app | A | 1 | 100 | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| visits_visit | 1 | resource | 2 | object_model | A | 3 | 100 | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| visits_visit | 1 | resource | 3 | object_id | A | 959 | 100 | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
+--------------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
It seems to me that although you have an index, MySQL doesn't know how to use it properly. It happens when information about data distribution (statistics) within a table are not up to date. In order to update them you should call ANALYZE TABLE visits_visit and then check results.
I was confused by misunderstanding of sql mechanisms, so i decided to create model Popular and save instances in it every 24 hours. Thanks to everyone, who tried to help.
As I said in your other question, Prefix indexes are virtually useless; don't use them except in rare circumstances.
Shrink the fields to reasonable lengths and you won't be tempted to use Prefix indexes.
The optimal index for that query is INDEX(object_model, object_id). Attempting to use INDEX(object_model(##), ...) will not get past object_model to anything after it.
If object_model is things like 'News', I suspect the other possible values are short, and perhaps there is a finite number of models. For "short" change to some smaller VARCHAR. For "finite", consider using ENUM('News', 'Weather', 'Sports', ...).
As for why it took longer after indexing...
Without the index, the Optimizer had no choice but to scan the entire table. This is a simple linear scan. It would read but not count any non-News rows.
With the index, the Optimizer has the additional choice of using the index. But, perhaps most rows are News? Well, it would scan the index (nice), but for each News item in the index, it would have to look up the row to get object_id (not so nice). It seems (from the timings) that the latter is less efficient.
By shrinking the declarations and using INDEX(object_model, object_id) (in this order), the query can be performed in the index. Think of the index as a mini-table with just those two columns in it. It is smaller. It is ordered by model, so it only needs to scan the 'News' part. The explain will show this "covering" by saying "Using index".
If all cases, the GROUP BY adds some overhead -- either keeping a hash of object_id in RAM or by saving intermediate results and sorting them. Then the ORDER BY requires a sort (or a priority hash) before the LIMIT can apply.

Comparing performance of two queries in MySQL

I am trying to optimize a query on a mysql table I've created. I expect that there will be many many rows in the table. Looking at this question the accepted answer and the top voted answer suggests two different approaches.
I wrote these two queries and want to know which one is more performant.
SELECT uv.*
FROM UserVisit uv INNER JOIN
(SELECT ID,MAX(visitDate) visitDate
FROM UserVisit GROUP BY ID) last
ON (uv.ID = last.ID AND uv.visitDate = last.visitDate);
Running this with EXPLAIN yields:
+----+-------------+------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------------------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------------------+------+-------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 2 | |
| 1 | PRIMARY | uv | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 11 | last.playscanID,last.visitDate | 1 | |
| 2 | DERIVED | UserVisit | index | NULL | PRIMARY | 11 | NULL | 4 | Using index |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+--------------------------------+------+-------------+
3 rows in set (0.01 sec)
And the other query:
SELECT lastVisits.*
FROM ( SELECT * FROM UserVisit ORDER BY visitDate DESC ) lastVisits
GROUP BY lastVisits.ID
Running that with EXPLAIN yields:
+----+-------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+---------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+---------------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 4 | Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 2 | DERIVED | UserVisit | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 4 | Using filesort |
+----+-------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+---------------------------------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
I am uncertain how to interpret the result of the two EXPLAINs.
Which of these queries can I expect to be faster and why?
EDIT:
This is the way UserVisit table looks:
+----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| ID | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| visitDate | date | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| visitTime | time | NO | | NULL | |
| analysisResult | decimal(3,2) | NO | | NULL | |
+----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Firstly, you might want to read the manual on EXPLAIN. It's a dense read, but it should provide most of the information you want.
Secondly, as Strawberry says, the second query works by accident. The behaviour may change in future versions, and your query would not return an error, just different data. That's nearly always a bad thing.
Finally, the EXPLAIN suggests that version 1 will be faster. In EXTRA, it's saying it's using an index, which is much faster than filesort. Without a schema, it's hard to be sure, but I think you will also benefit from a compound key on ID and visitdate.

Proper index/query when using INNER JOIN

I am not sure on how to make a decent index that will capture category/log_code properly. Maybe I also need to change my query? Appreciate any input!
All SELECTS contain:
SELECT logentry_id, date, log_codes.log_desc FROM log_entries
INNER JOIN log_codes ON log_entries.log_code = log_codes.log_code
ORDER BY logentry_id DESC
Query can be as above, but usually has a WHERE to specify the category of log_codes to show, and/or partner, and/or customer. Examples of WHERE:
WHERE partner_id = 1
WHERE log_codes.category_overview = 1
WHERE partner_id = 1 AND log_codes.category_overview = 1
WHERE partner_id = 1 AND customer_id = 1 AND log_codes.category_overview = 1
Database structure:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `log_codes` (
`log_code` smallint(6) NOT NULL,
`log_desc` varchar(255),
`category_mail` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
`category_overview` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
`category_cron` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
`category_documents` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
`category_error` tinyint(1) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`log_code`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `log_entries` (
`logentry_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`date` datetime NOT NULL,
`log_code` smallint(6) NOT NULL,
`partner_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`customer_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`logentry_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 ;
EDIT: Added indexes on fields, here is output of SHOW INDEXES:
+-----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+-----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| log_codes | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | log_code | A | 97 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_codes | 1 | category_mail | 1 | category_mail | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_codes | 1 | category_overview | 1 | category_overview | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_codes | 1 | category_cron | 1 | category_cron | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_codes | 1 | category_documents | 1 | category_documents | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_codes | 1 | category_error | 1 | category_error | A | 1 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
+-----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
+-------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+-------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| log_entries | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | logentry_id | A | 163020 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_entries | 1 | log_code | 1 | log_code | A | 90 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| log_entries | 1 | partner_id | 1 | partner_id | A | 6 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| log_entries | 1 | customer_id | 1 | customer_id | A | 20377 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
+-------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
EDIT 2: Added composite indexes: (log_code, category_overview) and (log_code, category_overview) on log_codes. (customer_id, partner_id) on log_entries.
Here are some EXPLAIN output (query returns 66818 rows):
EXPLAIN SELECT log_entries.logentry_id, log_entries.date, log_codes.log_code_desc FROM log_entries
INNER JOIN log_codes ON log_entries.log_code = log_codes.log_code
WHERE log_entries.partner_id = 1 AND log_codes.category_overview = 1 ORDER BY logentry_id DESC
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | log_entries | ref | log_code,partner_id | partner_id | 2 | const | 156110 | Using where; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | log_codes | eq_ref | PRIMARY,code_overview,overview_code | PRIMARY | 2 | log_entries.log_code | 1 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
But I also have some LEFT JOINs that I did not think would affect the index design, but they cause a "Using temporary" problem. Here is EXPLAIN output (query returns 66818 rows):
EXPLAIN SELECT log_entries.logentry_id, log_entries.date, log_codes.log_code_desc FROM log_entries
INNER JOIN log_codes ON log_entries.log_code = log_codes.log_code
LEFT JOIN partners ON log_entries.partner_id = partners.partner_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table1 ON log_entries.t1_id = joined_table1.t1_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table2 ON log_entries.t2_id = joined_table2.t2_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table3 ON log_entries.t3_id = joined_table3.t3_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table4 ON joined_table3.t4_id = joined_table4.t4_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table5 ON log_entries.t5_id = joined_table5.t5_id
LEFT JOIN joined_table6 ON log_entries.t6_id = joined_table6.t6_id
WHERE log_entries.partner_id = 1 AND log_codes.category_overview = 1 ORDER BY logentry_id DESC;
+----+-------------+---------------+--------+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------+--------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+---------------+--------+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------+--------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | log_codes | ref | PRIMARY,code_overview,overview_code | overview_code | 1 | const | 54 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | log_entries | ref | log_code,partner_id | log_code | 2 | log_codes.log_code | 1811 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | partners | const | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 2 | const | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table1 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 1 | log_entries.t1_id | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table2 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 1 | log_entries.t2_id | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table3 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 3 | log_entries.t3_id | 1 | |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table4 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 3 | joined_table3.t4_id | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table5 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | log_entries.t5_id | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | joined_table6 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | log_entries.t6_id | 1 | Using index |
+----+-------------+---------------+--------+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------+--------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
Don't know if it's a good or bad idea, but a subquery seems to get rid of the "Using temporary". Here is EXPLAIN output of two common scenarios. This query returns 66818 rows:
EXPLAIN SELECT log_entries.logentry_id, log_entries.date, log_codes.log_code_desc FROM log_entries INNER JOIN log_codes ON log_entries.log_code = log_codes.log_code
WHERE log_entries.partner_id = 1
AND log_entries.log_code IN (SELECT log_code FROM log_codes WHERE category_overview = 1) ORDER BY logentry_id DESC;
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | log_entries | ref | log_code,partner_id | partner_id | 2 | const | 156110 | Using where; Using filesort |
| 1 | PRIMARY | log_codes | eq_ref | PRIMARY,code_overview | PRIMARY | 2 | log_entries.log_code | 1 | |
| 2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | log_codes | unique_subquery | PRIMARY,code_overview,overview_code | PRIMARY | 2 | func | 1 | Using where |
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+------------+---------+----------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
And a overview on customer, query returns 12 rows:
EXPLAIN SELECT log_entries.logentry_id, log_entries.date, log_codes.log_code_desc FROM log_entries INNER JOIN log_codes ON log_entries.log_code = log_codes.log_code
WHERE log_entries.partner_id = 1 AND log_entries.customer_id = 10000
AND log_entries.log_code IN (SELECT log_code FROM log_codes WHERE category_overview = 1) ORDER BY logentry_id DESC;
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+----------------------+------+-----------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+----------------------+------+-----------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | log_entries | ref | log_code,partner_id,customer_id,customer_partner | customer_id | 4 | const | 27 | Using where; Using filesort |
| 1 | PRIMARY | log_codes | eq_ref | PRIMARY,code_overview | PRIMARY | 2 | log_entries.log_code | 1 | |
| 2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | log_codes | unique_subquery | PRIMARY,code_overview,overview_code | PRIMARY | 2 | func | 1 | Using where |
+----+--------------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+----------------------+------+-----------------------------+
There isn't a simple rule for guaranteed success when it comes to indexing - you need to look at a reasonable period of typical calls to work out what will help in terms of performance.
All subsequent comments are therefore to be taken not as absolute rules:
An index is "good" if it quickly gets you to a small subset of the data rather than if it eliminates only half of the data (e.g. there is rarely value in an index on a gender column where there are only M/F as the possible entries). So how unique are the values within e.g. log_code, category_overview and partner_id?
For a given query it is often helpful to have a "covering" index, that is one that includes all the fields that are used by the query - however, if there are too many fields from a single table in a query you instead want an index that includes the fields in the "where" or "join" clause to identify the row and then join back to the table storage to get all the fields required.
So given the information you've provided, a candidate index on log_codes would include log_code and category_overview. Similarly on log_entries for log_code and partner_id. However these would need to be evaluated for how they affect performance.
Bear in mind that any given index may improve the read performance of a single query retrieving data but it will also slow down writes to the table where there is then a requirement to write more information i.e. where the new row fits in the additional index. This is why you need to look at the big picture of activity on the database to determine where indexes are worth it.
Well done for taking the time to update your question with the detail requested. I am sorry if that sounds patronising but it is amazing the number people who are not prepared to take the time to help themselves.
Adding a composite index across (customer_id, partner_id) on the log_entries table should give a significant benefit for the last of your example where clauses.
The output of your SHOW INDEXES for the log_codes table would suggest that it is not currently populated as it shows NULL for all but the PK. Is this the case?
EDIT Sorry. Just read your comment to KAJ's answer detailing table content. It might be worth running that SHOW INDEXES statement again as it looks like MySQL may have been building its stats.
Adding a composite index across (log_code, category_overview) for the log_codes table should help but you will need to check the explain output to see if it is being used.
As a very crude general rule you want to create composite indices starting with the columns with the highest cardinality but this is not always the case. It will depend heavily on data distribution and query structure.
UPDATE I have created a mockup of your dataset and added the following indices. They give significant improvement based on your sample WHERE clauses -
ALTER TABLE `log_codes`
ADD INDEX `IX_overview_code` (`category_overview`, `log_code`);
ALTER TABLE `log_entries`
ADD INDEX `IX_partner_code` (`partner_id`, `log_code`),
ADD INDEX `IX_customer_partner_code` (`customer_id`, `partner_id`, `log_code`);
The last index is quite expensive in terms of disk space and degradation of insert performance but gives very fast SELECT based on your final WHERE clause example. My sample dataset has just over 1M records in the log_entries table with quite even distribution across the partner and customer IDs. Three of your sample WHERE clauses execute in less than a second but the one with category_overview as the only criterion is very slow although still sub-second with only 200k rows.

MySQL: How do I speed up a "Count()" query with a "JOIN" and "order_by"?

I have the following two (simplified for the sake of example) tables in my MySQL db:
DESCRIBE appname_item;
-----------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(200) | NO | | NULL | |
+-----------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
DESCRIBE appname_favorite;
+---------------+----------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------+----------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| user_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| item_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+---------------+----------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
I'm trying to get a list of items ordered by the number of favorites. The query below works, however there are thousands of records in the Item table, and the query is taking up to a couple of minutes to complete.
SELECT `appname_item`.`id`, `appname_item`.`name`, COUNT(`appname_favorite`.`id`) AS `num_favorites`
FROM `appname_item`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `appname_favorite` ON (`appname_item`.`id` = `appname_favorite`.`item_id`)
GROUP BY `appname_item`.`id`, `appname_item`.`name`
ORDER BY `num_favorites` DESC;
Here are the results of EXPLAIN, which provides some insight as to why the query is so slow (type "ALL", "using temporary", and "using filesort" should all be avoided if possible.)
+----+-------------+--------------------+------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+--------------------+------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | appname_item | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 574 | Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | appname_favorite | ref | appname_favorite_67b70d25 | appname_favorite_67b70d25 | 4 | appname.appname_item.id | 1 | |
+----+-------------+--------------------+------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
I know that the easiest way to optimize the query is to add an Index, but I can't seem to figure out how to add an Index for a Count() query that involves a JOIN and an order_by. I should also mention that I am running this through the Django ORM, so would prefer to not change the sql query and just work on fixing and fine tuning the db to run the query in the most effective way.
I've been trying to figure this out for a while, so any help would be much appreciated!
UPDATE
Here are the indexes that are already in the db:
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| appname_favorite | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 594 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| appname_favorite | 1 | appname_favorite_fbfc09f1 | 1 | user_id | A | 12 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| appname_favorite | 1 | appname_favorite_67b70d25 | 1 | item_id | A | 594 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Actually you can't avoid filesort because the count is determined at the calculation time and is unknown in the index. The only solution I can imagine is to create a composite index for table appname_item, which may help a little or not, depending on your particular data:
ALTER TABLE appname_item ADD UNIQUE INDEX `item_id_name` (`id` ASC, `name` ASC);
There is nothing wrong with your query - it looks good.
It could be the the optimizer has out-of-date info about the table. Try running this:
ANALYZE TABLE <tableaname>;
for all tables involved.
Firstly, for the count() function, you can check this answer to know more detail:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/2710630/1020600
For example, using MySQL, count(*) will be fast under a MyISAM table
but slow under an InnoDB. Under InnoDB you should use count(1) or
count(pk)
If your storage engines is MYISAM and if you want to count on row (i guess so), use count(*) is enough.
From your EXPLAIN, I found there's no Key for appname_item, if i try to add a condition
where `appname_item`.`id` = `appname_favorite`.`item_id`
then the "key" appears. so funny but it's work.
The final sql like this
explain SELECT `appname_item`.`id`, `appname_item`.`name`, COUNT(*) AS `num_favorites`
FROM `appname_item`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `appname_favorite` ON (`appname_item`.`id` = `appname_favorite`.`item_id`)
where `appname_item`.`id` = `appname_favorite`.`item_id`
GROUP BY `appname_item`.`id`, `appname_item`.`name`
ORDER BY `num_favorites` DESC;
+----+-------------+------------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key
| key_len | ref | rows | Extra
|
+----+-------------+------------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | appname_favorite | index | item_id |
item_id | 5 | NULL | 2312 | Using
index; Using temporary; Using filesort | | 1 | SIMPLE |
appname_item | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 |
test.appname_favorite.item_id | 1 | Using where
|
+----+-------------+------------------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+-------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
On my computer, table appname_item has 1686 rows and appname_favorite has 2312 rows, old sql takes from 15 to 23ms. new sql takes 3.7 to 5.3ms

How can a 'WHERE column LIKE "%expression%" ' perform better than a MATCH(column) AGAINST("expression") in MySQL?

I've run into a serious MySQL performance bottleneck which I'm unable to understand and resolve. Here are the table structures, indexes and record counts (bear with me, it's only two tables):
mysql> desc elggobjects_entity;
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| guid | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| title | text | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| description | text | NO | | NULL | |
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> show index from elggobjects_entity;
+--------------------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+--------------------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| elggobjects_entity | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | guid | A | 613637 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggobjects_entity | 1 | title | 1 | title | NULL | 131 | NULL | NULL | | FULLTEXT | |
| elggobjects_entity | 1 | title | 2 | description | NULL | 131 | NULL | NULL | | FULLTEXT | |
+--------------------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select count(*) from elggobjects_entity;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 613637 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> desc elggentity_relationships;
+--------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| guid_one | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| relationship | varchar(50) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| guid_two | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| time_created | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
+--------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> show index from elggentity_relationships;
+--------------------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+--------------------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| elggentity_relationships | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 11408236 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggentity_relationships | 0 | guid_one | 1 | guid_one | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggentity_relationships | 0 | guid_one | 2 | relationship | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggentity_relationships | 0 | guid_one | 3 | guid_two | A | 11408236 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggentity_relationships | 1 | relationship | 1 | relationship | A | 11408236 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| elggentity_relationships | 1 | guid_two | 1 | guid_two | A | 11408236 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+--------------------------+------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
6 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select count(*) from elggentity_relationships;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 11408236 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Now I'd like to use an INNER JOIN on those two tables and perform a full text search.
Query:
SELECT
count(DISTINCT o.guid) as total
FROM
elggobjects_entity o
INNER JOIN
elggentity_relationships r on (r.relationship="image" AND r.guid_one = o.guid)
WHERE
((MATCH (o.title, o.description) AGAINST ('scelerisque' )))
This gave me a 6 minute (!) response time.
On the other hand this one
SELECT
count(DISTINCT o.guid) as total
FROM
elggobjects_entity o
INNER JOIN
elggentity_relationships r on (r.relationship="image" AND r.guid_one = o.guid)
WHERE
((o.title like "%scelerisque%") OR (o.description like "%scelerisque%"))
returned the same count value in 0.02 seconds.
How is that possible? What am I missing here?
(MySQL info: mysql Ver 14.14 Distrib 5.1.49, for debian-linux-gnu (x86_64) using readline 6.1)
EDIT
EXPLAINing the first query (using match .. against) gives:
+----+-------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | r | ref | guid_one,relationship | relationship | 152 | const | 6145 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | o | fulltext | PRIMARY,title | title | 0 | | 1 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+-------+------+-------------+
while the second query (using LIKE "%..%"):
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | r | ref | guid_one,relationship | relationship | 152 | const | 6145 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | o | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 8 | elgg1710.r.guid_one | 1 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------+------+-------------+
By combining your experience and EXPLAIN's results, it seems that fulltext index is not as useful as you expect in this particular case. This depends on particular data in your database, on database structure or/and particular query.
Usually database engines use no more than one index per table. So when the table has more than one index, query optimizer tries to use the better one. But optimizer is not always clever enough.
EXPLAIN's output shows that database query optimizer decided to use indexes for relationship and title. The relationship filter reduces table elggentity_relationships to 6145 rows. And the title filter reduces the table elggobjects_entity to 72697 rows. Then MySQL needs to join those tables (6145 x 72697 = 446723065 filtering operations) without using any index because indexes have already been used for filtering. In this case this can be too much. MySQL can even make a decision to keep intermediate calculations in the hard drive by trying to keep enough free space in memory.
Now let's take a look into another query. It uses relationship and PRIMARY KEY (of table elggobjects_entity) as its indexes. The relationship filter reduces table elggentity_relationships to 6145 rows. By joining those tables on PRIMARY KEY index, the result gets only 3957 rows. This is not much for the last filter (i.e. LIKE "%scelerisque%"), even if index is NOT used for this purpose at all.
As you can see the speed much depends on indexes selected for a query. So, in this particular case the PRIMARY KEY index is much more useful than fulltext title index, because PRIMARY KEY has bigger impact for result reduction than title.
MySQL is not always clever to set the right indexes. We can do this manually, by using clauses like IGNORE INDEX (index_name), FORCE INDEX (index_name), etc.
But in your case the problem is that if we use MATCH() AGAINST() in a query then the fulltext index is required, because MATCH() AGAINST() doesn't work without fulltext index at all. So this is the main reason why MySQL has chosen incorrect indexes for the query.
UPDATE
OK, I did some investigation.
Firstly, you may try to force MySQL to use guid_one index instead of relationship on table elggentity_relationships: USE INDEX (guid_one).
But for even better performance I think you can try to create one index for the composition of two columns (guid_one, membership). Current index guid_one is very similar, but for 3 columns, not for 2. In this query there are only 2 columns used. In my opinion after index creation MySQL should automatically use the right index. If not, force MySQL to use it.
Note: After index creation don't forget to remove old USE INDEX instruction from your query, because this may prevent query from using the newly created index. :)