I have the following query:
SELECT *
FROM shop_user_member_spots
WHERE delete_flag = 0
ORDER BY date_spotted desc
LIMIT 10
When run, it takes a few minutes. The table is around 2.5 million rows.
Here is the table (not designed by me but I am able to make some changes):
And finally, here are the indexes (again, not made by me!):
I've been attempting to get this query running fast for hours now, to no avail.
Here is the output of EXPLAIN:
Any help / articles are much appreciated.
Based on your query, it seems the index you would want would be on (delete_flag, date_spotted). You have an index that has the two columns, but the id column is in between them, which would make the index unhelpful in sorting based on date_spotted. Now whether mysql will use the index based on Zohaib's answer I can't say (sorry, I work most often with SQL Server).
The problem that I see in the explain plan is that the index on spotted date is not being used, insted filesort mechanism is being used to sort (as far as index on delete flag is concerned, we actually gain performance benefit of index if the column on which index is being created contains unique values)
the mysql documentation says
Index will not used for order by clause if
The key used to fetch the rows is not the same as the one used in the ORDER BY:
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE key2=constant ORDER BY key1;
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/order-by-optimization.html
I guess same is the case here. Although you can try using Force Index
Related
I have problem with MySQL ORDER BY, it slows down query and I really don't know why, my query was a little more complex so I simplified it to a light query with no joins, but it stills works really slow.
Query:
SELECT
W.`oid`
FROM
`z_web_dok` AS W
WHERE
W.`sent_eRacun` = 1 AND W.`status` IN(8, 9) AND W.`Drzava` = 'BiH'
ORDER BY W.`oid` ASC
LIMIT 0, 10
The table has 946,566 rows, with memory taking 500 MB, those fields I selecting are all indexed as follow:
oid - INT PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT
status - INT INDEXED
sent_eRacun - TINYINT INDEXED
Drzava - VARCHAR(3) INDEXED
I am posting screenshoots of explain query first:
The next is the query executed to database:
And this is speed after I remove ORDER BY.
I have also tried sorting with DATETIME field which is also indexed, but I get same slow query as with ordering with primary key, this started from today, usually it was fast and light always.
What can cause something like this?
The kind of query you use here calls for a composite covering index. This one should handle your query very well.
CREATE INDEX someName ON z_web_dok (Drzava, sent_eRacun, status, oid);
Why does this work? You're looking for equality matches on the first three columns, and sorting on the fourth column. The query planner will use this index to satisfy the entire query. It can random-access the index to find the first row matching your query, then scan through the index in order to get the rows it needs.
Pro tip: Indexes on single columns are generally harmful to performance unless they happen to match the requirements of particular queries in your application, or are used for primary or foreign keys. You generally choose your indexes to match your most active, or your slowest, queries. Edit You asked whether it's better to create specific indexes for each query in your application. The answer is yes.
There may be an even faster way. (Or it may not be any faster.)
The IN(8, 9) gets in the way of easily handling the WHERE..ORDER BY..LIMIT completely efficiently. The possible solution is to treat that as OR, then convert to UNION and do some tricks with the LIMIT, especially if you might also be using OFFSET.
( SELECT ... WHERE .. = 8 AND ... ORDER BY oid LIMIT 10 )
UNION ALL
( SELECT ... WHERE .. = 9 AND ... ORDER BY oid LIMIT 10 )
ORDER BY oid LIMIT 10
This will allow the covering index described by OJones to be fully used in each of the subqueries. Furthermore, each will provide up to 10 rows without any temp table or filesort. Then the outer part will sort up to 20 rows and deliver the 'correct' 10.
For OFFSET, see http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql#or
I have a table of 15.1 million records. I'm running the following query on it to process the records for duplicate checking.
select id, name, state, external_id
from companies
where dup_checked=0
order by name
limit 500;
When I use explain extended on the query it tells me it's using the index_companies_on_name index which is just an index on the company name. I'm assuming this is due to the ordering. I tried creating other indexes based on the name and dup_checked fields hoping it would use this one as it may be faster, but it still uses the index_companies_on_name index.
Initially it was fast enough, but now we're down to 3.3 million records left to check and this query is taking up to 90 seconds to execute. I'm not quite sure what else to do to make this run faster. Is a different index the answer or something else I'm not thinking of? Thanks.
Generally the trick here is to create an index that filters first, reducing the number of rows ("Cardinality"), and has the ordering applied secondarily:
CREATE INDEX `index_companies_on_dup_checked_name`
ON `companies` (`dup_checked`,`name`)
That should give you the scope you need.
I have the following query:
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE collection_id = 10
ORDER BY item_order ASC,id DESC
LIMIT 25
Right now I have two indexes, one on collection_id,id and another on collection_id,item_order.
item_order can be null if the user has not specified an order for the items, in which case I want them sorted by id.
Is my index setup optimal, or is there a way to have one three column index that handles both sorting by id and item_order? It seem redundant to index the "collection_id" column two times..
The optimal index for this query is (collection_id,id,item_order).
MySQL will only use one index per table per query, and it looks for matching indexes by order of columns in the query. The easiest way to determine what an index should look like for this query is by looking at the WHERE conditions followed by the ORDER BY conditions.
When in doubt, use EXPLAIN liberally and make sure it's not unnecessarily creating temporary tables or using filesort.
Using EXPLAIN before a select statement will tell you which of your indexes it is using. The official documentation is here:
MySQL 5: Using EXPLAIN
A good tutorial is here:
Optimizing MySQL Queries and Indexes
For the query above, the ideal index will be along the lines of (collection_id, item_order, id).
Indexing the same column multiple times is by no means a waste of time - so long as you don't end up with two identical indexes, or indexes which are never used.
I want to run a simple query to get the "n" oldest records in the table. (It has a creation_date column).
How can i get that without using "order-by". It is a very big table and using order by on entire table to get only "n" records is not so convincing.
(Assume n << size of table)
When you are concerned about performance, you should probably not discard the use of order by too early.
Queries like that can be implemende as Top-N query supported by an appropriate index, that's running very fast because it doesn't need to sort the entire table, not even the selecte rows, because the data is already sorted in the index.
example:
select *
from table
where A = ?
order by creation_date
limit 10;
without appropriate index it will be slow if you are having lot's of data. However, if you create an index like that:
create index test on table (A, creation_date );
The query will be able to start fetching the rows in the correct order, without sorting, and stop when the limit is reached.
Recipe: put the where columns in the index, followed by the order by columns.
If there is no where clause, just put the order by into the index. The order by must match the index definition, especially if there are mixed asc/desc orders.
The indexed Top-N query is the performance king--make sure to use them.
I few links for further reading (all mine):
How to use index efficienty in mysql query
http://blog.fatalmind.com/2010/07/30/analytic-top-n-queries/ (Oracle centric)
http://Use-The-Index-Luke.com/ (not yet covering Top-N queries, but that's to come in 2011).
I haven't tested this concept before but try and create an index on the creation_date column. Which will automatically sort the rows is ascending order. Then your select query can use the orderby creation_date desc with the Limit 20 to get the first 20 records. The database engine should realize the index has already done the work sorting and wont actually need to sort, because the index has already sorted it on save. All it needs to do is read the last 20 records from the index.
Worth a try.
Create an index on creation_date and query by using order by creation_date asc|desc limit n and the response will be very fast (in fact it cannot be faster). For the "latest n" scenario you need to use desc.
If you want more constraints on this query (e.g where state='LIVE') then the query may become very slow and you'll need to reconsider the indexing strategy.
You can use Group By if your grouping some data and then Having clause to select specific records.
I got a spicy question about mysql...
The idea here is to select the n last records from a table, filtering by a property, (possibly from another table). That simple.
At this point you wanna reply :
let n = 10
SELECT *
FROM huge_table
JOIN another_table
ON another_table.id = huge_table.another_table_id
AND another_table.some_interesting_property
ORDER BY huge_table.id DESC
LIMIT 10
Without the JOIN that's OK, mysql reads the index from the end and trow me 10 items, execution time is negligible
With the join, the execution time become dependent of the size of the table and in many case not negligible, the explain stating that mysql is : "Using where; Using index; Using temporary; Using filesort"
MySQL documentation (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/order-by-optimization.html) states that :
"You are joining many tables, and the columns in the ORDER BY are not all from the first nonconstant table that is used to retrieve rows. (This is the first table in the EXPLAIN output that does not have a const join type.)"
explaining why MySQL can't use index to resolve my ORDER BY prefering a huge file sort ...
My question is : Is it natural to use ORDER BY ... LIMIT 10 to get last items ? Do you really do it while picking last 10 cards in an ascending ordered card deck ? Personally i just pick 10 from the bottom ...
I tried many possibilities but all ended giving the conclusion that i'ts really fast to query 10 first elements and slow to query 10 last cause of the ORDER BY clause.
Can a "Select last 10" really be fast ? Where i am wrong ?
Nice question, I think you should make order by column i.e., id a DESC index.
That should do the trick.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-index.html
With the join you're now restricting rows to "some_interesting_property" and the ID's in your huge_table may no longer be consecutive... Try an index on another_table (some_interesting_property, id) and also huge_table (another_table_id, id) and see if your EXPLAIN gives you better hints.
I'm having trouble reproducing your situation. Whether I use ASC or DESC with my huge_table/another_table mock up, my EXPLAINs and execution time all show approx N rows read and a logical join. Which version of MySQL are you using?
Also, from the EXPLAIN doc, it states that Using index indicates
The column information is retrieved from the table using only information in the index tree without having to do an additional seek to read the actual row
which doesn't correspond with the fact you're doing a SELECT *, unless you have an index which covers your whole table.
Perhaps you should show your schema, including indexes, and the EXPLAIN output.