I currently have a summary table to keep track of my users' post counts, and I run SELECTs on that table to sort them by counts, like WHERE count > 10, for example. Now I know having an index on columns used in WHERE clauses speeds things up, but since these fields will also be updated quite often, would indexing provide better or worse performance?
If you have a query like
SELECT count(*) as rowcount
FROM table1
GROUP BY name
Then you cannot put an index on count, you need to put an index on the group by field instead.
If you have a field named count
Then putting an index in this query may speed up the query, it may also make no difference at all:
SELECT id, `count`
FROM table1
WHERE `count` > 10
Whether an index on count will speed up the query really depends on what percentage of the rows satisfy the where clause. If it's more than 30%, MySQL (or any SQL for that matter) will refuse to use an index.
It will just stubbornly insist on doing a full table scan. (i.e. read all rows)
This is because using an index requires reading 2 files (1 index file and then the real table file with the actual data).
If you select a large percentage of rows, reading the extra index file is not worth it and just reading all the rows in order will be faster.
If only a few rows pass the sets, using an index will speed up this query a lot
Know your data
Using explain select will tell you what indexes MySQL has available and which one it picked and (kind of/sort of in a complicated kind of way) why.
See: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/explain.html
Indexes in general provide better read performance at the cost of slightly worse insert, update and delete performance. Usually the tradeoff is worth it depending on the width of the index and the number of indexes that already exist on the table. In your case, I would bet that the overall performance (reading and writing) will still be substantially better with the index than without but you would need to run tests to know for sure.
It will improve read performance and worsen write performance. If the tables are MyISAM and you have a lot of people posting in a short amount of time you could run into issues where MySQL is waiting for locks, eventually causing a crash.
There's no way of really knowing that without trying it. A lot depends on the ratio of reads to writes, storage engine, disk throughput, various MySQL tuning parameters, etc. You'd have to setup a simulation that resembles production and run before and after.
I think its unlikely that the write performance will be a serious issue after adding the index.
But note that the index won't be used anyway if it is not selective enough - if more than for example 10% of your users have count > 10 the fastest query plan might be to not use the index and just scan the entire table.
Related
I've been using indexes on my MySQL databases for a while now but never properly learnt about them. Generally I put an index on any fields that I will be searching or selecting using a WHERE clause but sometimes it doesn't seem so black and white.
What are the best practices for MySQL indexes?
Example situations/dilemmas:
If a table has six columns and all of them are searchable, should I index all of them or none of them?
What are the negative performance impacts of indexing?
If I have a VARCHAR 2500 column which is searchable from parts of my site, should I index it?
You should definitely spend some time reading up on indexing, there's a lot written about it, and it's important to understand what's going on.
Broadly speaking, an index imposes an ordering on the rows of a table.
For simplicity's sake, imagine a table is just a big CSV file. Whenever a row is inserted, it's inserted at the end. So the "natural" ordering of the table is just the order in which rows were inserted.
Imagine you've got that CSV file loaded up in a very rudimentary spreadsheet application. All this spreadsheet does is display the data, and numbers the rows in sequential order.
Now imagine that you need to find all the rows that have some value "M" in the third column. Given what you have available, you have only one option. You scan the table checking the value of the third column for each row. If you've got a lot of rows, this method (a "table scan") can take a long time!
Now imagine that in addition to this table, you've got an index. This particular index is the index of values in the third column. The index lists all of the values from the third column, in some meaningful order (say, alphabetically) and for each of them, provides a list of row numbers where that value appears.
Now you have a good strategy for finding all the rows where the value of the third column is "M". For instance, you can perform a binary search! Whereas the table scan requires you to look N rows (where N is the number of rows), the binary search only requires that you look at log-n index entries, in the very worst case. Wow, that's sure a lot easier!
Of course, if you have this index, and you're adding rows to the table (at the end, since that's how our conceptual table works), you need to update the index each and every time. So you do a little more work while you're writing new rows, but you save a ton of time when you're searching for something.
So, in general, indexing creates a tradeoff between read efficiency and write efficiency. With no indexes, inserts can be very fast -- the database engine just adds a row to the table. As you add indexes, the engine must update each index while performing the insert.
On the other hand, reads become a lot faster.
Hopefully that covers your first two questions (as others have answered -- you need to find the right balance).
Your third scenario is a little more complicated. If you're using LIKE, indexing engines will typically help with your read speed up to the first "%". In other words, if you're SELECTing WHERE column LIKE 'foo%bar%', the database will use the index to find all the rows where column starts with "foo", and then need to scan that intermediate rowset to find the subset that contains "bar". SELECT ... WHERE column LIKE '%bar%' can't use the index. I hope you can see why.
Finally, you need to start thinking about indexes on more than one column. The concept is the same, and behaves similarly to the LIKE stuff -- essentially, if you have an index on (a,b,c), the engine will continue using the index from left to right as best it can. So a search on column a might use the (a,b,c) index, as would one on (a,b). However, the engine would need to do a full table scan if you were searching WHERE b=5 AND c=1)
Hopefully this helps shed a little light, but I must reiterate that you're best off spending a few hours digging around for good articles that explain these things in depth. It's also a good idea to read your particular database server's documentation. The way indices are implemented and used by query planners can vary pretty widely.
Check out presentations like More Mastering the Art of Indexing.
Update 12/2012: I have posted a new presentation of mine: How to Design Indexes, Really. I presented this in October 2012 at ZendCon in Santa Clara, and in December 2012 at Percona Live London.
Designing the best indexes is a process that has to match the queries you run in your app.
It's hard to recommend any general-purpose rules about which columns are best to index, or whether you should index all columns, no columns, which indexes should span multiple columns, etc. It depends on the queries you need to run.
Yes, there is some overhead so you shouldn't create indexes needlessly. But you should create the indexes that give benefit to the queries you need to run quickly. The overhead of an index is usually far outweighed by its benefit.
For a column that is VARCHAR(2500), you probably want to use a FULLTEXT index or a prefix index:
CREATE INDEX i ON SomeTable(longVarchar(100));
Note that a conventional index can't help if you're searching for words that may be in the middle of that long varchar. For that, use a fulltext index.
I won't repeat some of the good advice in other answers, but will add:
Compound Indices
You can create compound indices - an index that includes multiple columns. MySQL can use these from left to right. So if you have:
Table A
Id
Name
Category
Age
Description
if you have a compound index that includes Name/Category/Age in that order, these WHERE clauses would use the index:
WHERE Name='Eric' and Category='A'
WHERE Name='Eric' and Category='A' and Age > 18
but
WHERE Category='A' and Age > 18
would not use that index because everything has to be used from left to right.
Explain
Use Explain / Explain Extended to understand what indices are available to MySQL and which one it actually selects. MySQL will only use ONE key per query.
EXPLAIN EXTENDED SELECT * from Table WHERE Something='ABC'
Slow Query Log
Turn on the slow query log to see which queries are running slow.
Wide Columns
If you have a wide column where MOST of the distinction happens in the first several characters, you can use only the first N characters in your index. Example: We have a ReferenceNumber column defined as varchar(255) but 97% of the cases, the reference number is 10 characters or less. I changed the index to only look at the first 10 characters and improved performance quite a bit.
If a table has six columns and all of them are searchable, should i index all of them or none of them
Are you searching on a field by field basis or are some searches using multiple fields?
Which fields are most being searched on?
What are the field types? (Index works better on INTs than on VARCHARs for example)
Have you tried using EXPLAIN on the queries that are being run?
What are the negetive performance impacts of indexing
UPDATEs and INSERTs will be slower. There's also the extra storage space requirments, but that's usual unimportant these days.
If i have a VARCHAR 2500 column which is searchable from parts of my site, should i index it
No, unless it's UNIQUE (which means it's already indexed) or you only search for exact matches on that field (not using LIKE or mySQL's fulltext search).
Generally I put an index on any fields that i will be searching or selecting using a WHERE clause
I'd normally index the fields that are the most queried, and then INTs/BOOLEANs/ENUMs rather that fields that are VARCHARS. Don't forget, often you need to create an index on combined fields, rather than an index on an individual field. Use EXPLAIN, and check the slow log.
Load Data Efficiently: Indexes speed up retrievals but slow down inserts and deletes, as well as updates of values in indexed columns. That is, indexes slow down most operations that involve writing. This occurs because writing a row requires writing not only the data row, it requires changes to any indexes as well. The more indexes a table has, the more changes need to be made, and the greater the average performance degradation. Most tables receive many reads and few writes, but for a table with a high percentage of writes, the cost of index updating might be significant.
Avoid Indexes: If you don’t need a particular index to help queries perform better, don’t create it.
Disk Space: An index takes up disk space, and multiple indexes take up correspondingly more space. This might cause you to reach a table size limit more quickly than if there are no indexes. Avoid indexes wherever possible.
Takeaway: Don't over index
In general, indices help speedup database search, having the disadvantage of using extra disk space and slowing INSERT / UPDATE / DELETE queries. Use EXPLAIN and read the results to find out when MySQL uses your indices.
If a table has six columns and all of them are searchable, should i index all of them or none of them?
Indexing all six columns isn't always the best practice.
(a) Are you going to use any of those columns when searching for specific information?
(b) What is the selectivity of those columns (how many distinct values are there stored, in comparison to the total amount of records on the table)?
MySQL uses a cost-based optimizer, which tries to find the "cheapest" path when performing a query. And fields with low selectivity aren't good candidates.
What are the negetive performance impacts of indexing?
Already answered: extra disk space, lower performance during insert - update - delete.
If i have a VARCHAR 2500 column which is searchable from parts of my site, should i index it?
Try the FULLTEXT Index.
1/2) Indexes speed up certain select operations but they slow down other operations like insert, update and deletes. It can be a fine balance.
3) use a full text index or perhaps sphinx
I have a huge database and my task is to improve its performance to avoid the timeout issues and minimize the select query duration's.
Which all areas do i need to concentrate to improve the performance of Stored Procedures effectively?
How does sites like facebook store huge amount of data and still doesn't lack on performance?
What can be done to improve the performance of SPs?
Ninety percent of slow queries can be fixed by adding/rebuilding indexes. Make sure that you have indexes on all the tables involved, and that your join clause criteria match those index keys.
Note that adding indexes can have its own performance cost, however, especially when you insert records. But it's usually worth it.
If you want to improve Stored Procedure performance in SQL Server, would recommend below 3 things:
Add 'SET NOCOUNT ON' in the SP --- It can provide a significant performance boost, because network traffic is greatly reduced.
Try to use columns in the where conditions which are mainly indexed.
Verify the execution plan and if you see multiple parallelism occurring, try to use OPTION(MAXDOP N) where N you can set as per the requirement.
the question is
factors that affect multiple joins
There are many things that affect negatively but the usual suspects are below.
Lack of Index on the joined columns
Inefficient join orders for OUTER JOIN
Use of Subquery
Modification of search arguments or join column (e.g.A.intColumn+1 = B.intColumn
Clauses like ORDER BY will also impact performance in general.
(MySQL-centric answer)
JOINs are performed by tackling one table at a time. The optimizer picks which one it thinks is best to start with. Here are some criteria:
The table with the most filtering (WHERE ...) will probably be picked first.
If two tables look about the same, the smaller table will probably be picked first.
Something like that occurs when picking the 'next' table to use.
MySQL almost never uses more than one index per table in a SELECT (assuming there are no subqueries or UNIONs). A Composite INDEX is often useful. Sometimes a "covering" index is warranted.
See my index cookbook.
Stored Routines do not help performance much -- unless you are accessing the server over a WAN. In that case, a SP cuts down on the number of roundtrips, thereby improving latency.
30K inserts per day? That is trivial. Where is there performance issue? On big SELECTs? Is this a Data Warehouse application? Do you have Summary Tables? They are the big performance boost.
Millions of rows? Or Billions?
Normalized? Over-normalized? (Do not normalize 'continuous' values such as FLOAT, DATE, etc.)
That's a lot of hand-waving. If you want some real advice, let's see a slow query.
In my experience, it all comes down to indexing. This is best illustrated by using an example. Suppose you have two tables T1 and T2 and you want to join them. Each table only has 1000 rows in it. Without indexing, the query execution plan will take the cross product of the two tables and then iterate through sequentially filtering out the results that don't match the where condition. For simplicity, lets just assume only one row matches the filter condition.
T1 X T2 = 1000 * 1000 = 1,000,000
Without indexing, filtering will require 1 million steps.
However, with indexing, only 20 steps will be required. Log2(n)
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.
We've got a table we use as a queue. Entries are constantly being added, and constantly being updated, and then deleted. Though we might be adding 3 entries/sec the table never grows to be more than a few hundred rows.
To get entries out of table we are doing a simple select.
SELECT * FROM queue_table WHERE some_id = ?
We are debating adding an index on some_id. I think the small size and speed at which we are adding and removing rows would say no, but conventionally, it seems we should have an index.
Any thoughts?
If you are using InnoDB (which you should do having a table of this kind) and the table is accessed concurrently, then you should definitely create the index.
When performing DML operations, InnoDB locks all rows it scans, not only those that match the WHERE clause conditions.
This means that without an index, a query like this:
DELETE
FROM mytable
WHERE some_id = ?
will have to do a full table scan and lock all rows.
This kills all concurrency (even if the threads access different some_id's they'll still have to wait for each other), and may even result in deadlocks.
With 3 transactions per second, no index should be a problem, so just create it.
To be sure, a benchmark using both techniques would be needed.
But generally, if the access is 50% reads and 50% writes, the penalty of updating an index could well not be worth it. But if the number of rows increase, that weights both the read and write performance such that an index should be used.
The only way to know for sure would be doing some benchmarks in actual/real conditions ; for example, measure the time each query takes, and :
for one day, collect that information each time the query is run -- without the index
and for another day, do exactly the same -- with the index.
For a table with a few hundreds rows doing both lots and inserts/deletes and select/updates, the difference should not be that big, so I think you can test in your production environment (and in real conditions) without much danger.
Yes, I know, testing in production is bad ; but in that case, it's the best way to know for sure : those conditions are probably too hard to replicate in a testing environment...