Just a question. On of my websites became significant slower. Loadtimes taking over 30 seconds on 30k rows. I must say queries aren't optimized so 10k queries can be fired but still, I find this taking too long... So I figured, let's check the indexes. After viewing some of the 'problem' tables I saw I made index over multiple columns but the cardinality is only shown on 1 column and the other indexes have 0 cardinality.
Did I made wrong indexes? In other words, should I make an index for each column instead of combining them?
It's almost certainly the case that you created the wrong indexes. Most people do! :-)
There's no rule to create indexes on multiple columns vs. individual columns. The best indexes to create depends on the queries you run, not your database schema.
Analyzing the queries and deciding on indexes is a meticulous process. You can use EXPLAIN to see how a given query is using existing indexes. Be sure to read the docs:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/using-explain.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/explain-output.html
Related
Assuming that I have 20L records,
Approach 1: Hold all 20L records in a single table.
Approach 2: Make 20 tables and enter 1L into each.
Which is the best method to increase performance and why, or are there any other approaches?
Splitting a large table into smaller ones can give better performance -- it is called sharding when the tables are then distributed across multiple database servers -- but when you do it manually it is most definitely an antipattern.
What happens if you have 100 tables and you are looking for a row but you don't know which table has it? If you put index on the tables you'll need to do it 100 times. If somebody wants to join the data set he might need to include 100 tables in his join in some use cases. You'd need to invent your own naming conventions, document and enforce them yourself with no help from the database catalog. Backup and recovery and all the other maintenance tasks will be a nightmare....just don't do it.
Instead just break up the table by partitioning it. You get 100% of the performance improvement that you would have gotten from multiple tables but now the database is handling the details for you.
When looking for read time performance, indexes are a great way to improve the performance. However, having indexes can slow down the write time queries.
So if you are looking for a read time performance, prefer indexes.
Few things to keep in mind when creating the index
Try to avoid null values in the index
Cardinality of the columns matter. It's been observed that having a column with lower cardinality first gives better performance when compared to a column with higher cardinality
Sequence of the columns in index should match your where clause. For ex. you create a index on Col A and Col B but query on Col C, your index would not be used. So formulate your indexes according to your where clauses.
When in doubt if an index was used or not, use EXPLAIN to see which index was used.
DB indexes can be a tricky subject for the beginners but imagining it as a tree traversal helps visualize the path traced when reading the data.
The best/easiest is to have a unique table with proper indexes. On 100K lines I had 30s / query, but with an index I got 0.03s / query.
When it doesn't fit anymore you split tables (for me it's when I got to millions of lines).
And preferably on different servers.
You can then create a microservice accessing all servers and returning data to consumers like if there was only one database.
But once you do this you better not have joins, because it'll get messy replicating data on every databases.
I would stick to the first method.
I've read that indexing on some databases (SQL Server is the one I read about) doesn't have much effect until you cross a certain threshold of rows because the database will hold the entire table X in memory.
Ordinarily, I'd plan to index on my WHEREs and unique columns/lesser-changed tables. After hearing about the suggested minimum (which was about 10k), I wanted to learn more about that idea. If there are tables that I know will never pass a certain point, this might change the way I index some of them.
For something like MySQL MyISAM/INNODB, is there a point where indexing has little value and what are some ways of determining that?
Note: Very respectfully, I'm not looking for suggestions about structuring my database like "You should index anyway," I'm looking to understand this concept, if it's true or not, how to determine the thresholds, and similar information.
One of the major uses of indexes is to reduce the number of pages being read. The index itself is usually smaller than the table. So, just in terms of page read/writes, you generally need at least three data pages to see a benefit, because using an index requires at least two data pages (one for the index and one for the original data).
(Actually, if the index covers the query, then the breakeven is two.)
The number of data pages needed for a table depends on the size of the records and the number of rows. So, it is really not possible to specify a threshold on the number of rows.
The above very rudimentary explanation leaves out a few things:
The cost of scanning the data pages to do comparisons for each row.
The cost of loading and using index pages.
Other uses of indexing.
But it gives you an idea, and you can see benefits on tables much smaller than 10k rows. That said you can easily do tests on your data to see how queries work on the tables in question.
Also, I strongly, strongly recommend having primary keys on all tables and using those keys for foreign key relationships. The primary key itself is an index.
Indexes serve a lot of purposes. InnoDB tables are always organized as an index, on the cluster key. Indexes can be used to enforce unique constraints, as well as support foreign key constraints. The topic of "indexes" spans way more than query performance.
In terms of query performance, it really depends on what the query is doing. If we are selecting a small subset of rows, out of large set, then effective use of an index can speed that up by eliminating vast swaths of rows from being checked. That's where the biggest bang comes from.
If we are pulling all of the rows, or nearly all the rows, from a set, then an index typically doesn't help narrow down which rows to check; even when an index is available, the optimizer may choose to do a full scan of all of the rows.
But even when pulling large subsets, appropriate indexes can improve performance for join operations, and can significantly improve performance of queries with GROUP BY or ORDER BY clauses, by making use of an index to retrieve rows in order, rather than requiring a "Using filesort" operation.
If we are looking for a simple rule of thumb... for a large set, if we are needing to pull (or look at) less than 10% of the total rows, then an access plan using a suitable index will typically outperform a full scan. If we are looking for a specific row, based on a unique identifier, index is going to be faster than full scan. If we are pulling all columns for every row in the table n no particular order, then a full scan is going to be faster.
Again, it really comes down to what operations are being performed. What queries are being executed, and the performance profile that we need from those queries. That is going to be the key to determining the indexing strategy.
In terms of gaining understanding, use EXPLAIN to see the execution plan. And learn the operations available to MySQl optimizer.
(The topic of indexing strategy in terms of database performance is much too large for a StackOverflow question.)
Each situation is different. If you profile your code, then you'll understand better each anti-pattern. To demonstrate the extreme unexpectedness, consider Oracle:
If this were Oracle, I would say zero because if an empty table's high water mark is very high, then a query that motivates a full table scan that returns zero rows would be much more expensive than the same query that were to induce even a full index scan.
The same process that I went through to understand Oracle you can do with MySQL: profile your code.
Sorry all,
I do have this mini table with 3 columns but, I will list the values either by one or other column.
1) Is it ok to have two of those columns with indexes?
2) Should we have only one index per table?
3) At the limit, if we have a table with 100 columns for example, and we have 50 of them with indexes, is this ok?
Thanks,
MEM
It's fine to have many indexes, even multiple indexes on one table, as long as you are using them.
Run EXPLAIN on your queries and check which indexes are being used. If there are indexes that are not being used by any queries then they aren't giving you any benefit and are just slowing down modifications to the table. These unused indexes should be removed.
You may also want to consider multiple-column indexes if you have not already done so.
To quickly answer your questions, I think:
Yes, it's OK to have two or even more columns with indexes
Not necessarily. You can have more than one index per table.
It might be OK, it might be not OK. It depends. The thing with indexes is that they take space (in DISK) and they make operations that modify your data (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) slower since for each and everyone of them, there will be a TABLE and INDEX update involved.
Your index creation should be driven by your queries. See what queries are you going to have on your system and create indexes accordingly.
There is no problem with having more than one index per table, and no, one index per table isn't really a guideline.
Having too many indexes is inefficient because
It requires additional storage
MySQL needs to determine which index to use for a particular query
Edit : As per Pablo and Mark, you need to understand how your data is being accessed in order for you to build effective indices. You can then refine and reduce the indexes.
I read on MySQL Performance Blog that when tables are large, it is better to scan full tables, instead of using indexes.
I have a table with tens of millions of rows. When conducting queries, if I use no indexes, then queries are 24 times slower than with indexes. I know lot of things may cause this (e.g., are rows stored sequentially), but can you please give me some hints what might be happening? Or how I should start examining this issue? I want to understand when use of indexes is preferred and when it's not
Thanks
The article says that when dealing with very large data sets, where the amount of rows you need to work with are approaching the number of rows that is in the table, using an index might hurt performance.
In this case, going through the index will indeed hurt performance, as long as you need more data than is present in the index.
To go through the index, the database engine first has to read large parts of the index table (it is a type of table), then for each row (or set of rows) from this result, go to the real table and start cherrypicking pages to read.
If, on the other hand, you only need to retrieve columns that area already part of the index table, then the database engine only has to read from that, and not continue on to the full table for more data.
If you end up reading most or close to most of the actual table in question, all the work required to deal with the index might be more overhead than just doing a full table-scan to begin with.
Now, this is all the article is saying. For most work dealing with a database, using indexes is the exact right thing to do.
For instance, if you need to extract a small set of rows, going through an index instead of a full table scan will be many order of magnitudes faster.
In any case, if you're in doubt, you should do some performance profiling to find out how your application behaves under different types of loads, and then start tweaking, don't take a single article as a silver bullet for anything.
For instance, one way to speed up the example queries that does a count on the pad column in the article, would be to create a single index that covered both val and pad, in this way, the count would simply be a index-scan, and not a index-scan + table-lookup, and would run faster than the full table-scan.
Your best option is to know your data, and to experiment, and to know how the tools you use work, so indeed, learn more about indexes, but in the end, it is you who decides what is best for your program.
As always, it depends. I've so far never ran into a scenario as described in that blog posts. Using indexes on my queries for large (50+ million rows) has been on the order of 100 to 10000 times faster than doing a full table scan on these big tables.
There's probably no silver bullet here, you have to test for your particular data and your particular queries.
It is good practice to put the index on each column which you used in a WHERE clause.
I'm trying to fine-tune my MySQL server so I check my settings, analyzing slow-query log, and simplify my queries if possible.
Sometimes it is enough if I am indexing correctly, sometimes not. I've read somewhere (please correct me if this is stupidity) that more indexes than I need make the same effect, like if I don't have any of indexes.
How many indexes are enough? You can say it depends on hundreds of factors, but I'm curious about how can I clean up my mysql-slow.log enough to reduce server load.
Furthermore, I saw some "interesting" log entries like this:
# Query_time: 0 Lock_time: 0 Rows_sent: 22 Rows_examined: 44
SELECT * FROM `categories` ORDER BY `orderid` ASC;
The table in question contains exactly 22 rows, index set in orderid. Why is this query showing up in the log after all? Why examine 44 rows if it only contains 22?
The amount of indexing and the line of doing too much will depend on a lot of factors. On small tables like your "categories" table you usually don't want or need an index and it can actually hurt performance. The reason being is that it takes I/O (i.e. time) to read an index and then more I/O and time to retrieve the records associated with the matched rows. An exception being when you only query the columns contained within the index.
In your example you are retrieving all the columns and with only 22 rows and it may be faster to just do a table scan and sort those instead of using the index. The optimizer may/should be doing this and ignoring the index. If that is the case, then the index is just taking up space with no benefit. If your "categories" table is accessed often, you may want to consider pinning it into memory so the db server keeps it accessible without having to goto the disk all the time.
When adding indexes you need to balance out disk space, query performance, and the performance of updating and inserting into the tables. You can get away with more indexes on tables that are static and don't change much as opposed to tables with millions of updates a day. You'll start feeling the affects of index maintenance at that point. What is acceptable in your environment though is and can only be determined by you and your organization.
When doing your analysis, be sure to generate/update your table and index statistics so that you can be assured of accurate calculations.
As a general rule, you should have indexes on all primary keys (you don't have a choice in that), all foreign keys, and any other fields you commonly use to fetch rows.
For example, if I commonly look up users by username, I would have that indexed, even if user ID was the primary key.
How many indexes depends entirely on the queries your running, what kinds of joins are being done (if any), the kind of data stored in the table and how big the tables are (as well as many other factors). There's really no exact science to it. The greatest tool in your arsenal for figuring out how to optimize a query is explain. Using explain you can find out what kind of joins are being down, what possible keys could be used and which key (if any) was used as well as how many rows were examined for each table in the join.
Using this information you can decide how to key your tables and/or modify your queries to make them more efficient. The syntax for explain is very simple.
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM `categories` ORDER BY `orderid` ASC;
Note, explain does not actually run the query. So if you're using this to debug a query that takes 5 minutes to run, explain will still be very fast.
You do need to be careful when adding indexes though as they do cause inserts and updates to go slower and on very large tables this performance hit can become noticeable. Especially if that same table is used for a lot of reads. While adding a lot of indexes generally won't kill the performance of a query, you should still only add them as yo
Also keep in mind that MySQL will use a maximum of one index per select statement (although if you are using a join, it can also use one for each join). So indexing just because is a waste of disk space and will slow the database down on writes. If you commonly use a where statement on two columns, do one index containing both of those columns, it will be significantly faster than indexing just one alone.
An index can speed up a SELECT query, but it will slow down INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE queries because they need to update the index as well, not just the row.
This is just personal opinion (I've got no facts to back it up), but I think that if there is a query that is taking a long time and an index would speed it up - go for it! "Too many" indexes would be if you added indexes that didn't do any good (e.g. there were no queries it would speed up). For example, a silly thing to do would be to place an index on every column "just because".
There's no magic number for the "best" number of indexes. The basic rule is this: add indexes for queries that are used often and/or need to run quickly.
Having "too many" indexes shouldn't slow down queries, but it each index added adds a small amount of time to add/update items in the db (since it modifies the indices as well), and a small amount of space. However, if you're just adding indexes as required, this is probably not a big concern.