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
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
COUNT() vs. COUNT(1) vs. COUNT(pk): which is better?
count() and count(column_name), what's the diff?
count(*) vs count(column-name) - which is more correct?
The benefit of using count(*) in a select statement is that I can use it with any table and that makes automating scripts easier:
count_sql = 'select count(*) ' + getRestOfSQL('tablename');
But, is it less efficient than using count(specific_field)?
For InnoDB
If specific_field is not nullable, they are equivalent and have the same performance.
If specific_field is nullable, they don't do the same thing. COUNT(specific_field) counts the rows which have a not null value of specific_field. This requires looking at the value of specific_field for each row. COUNT(*) simply counts the number of rows and in this case can be faster as it does not require examining the value of specific_field.
For MyISAM
There is a special optimization for the following so that it does not even need to fetch all rows:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM yourtable
Generally, it wouldn't matter so much, as we're returning the same number of rows.
This link covers it nicely
count(*) vs count(column-name) - which is more correct?
Count(*) vs Count(1)
This link also explains more, specifically with Oracle
I'd like to know which of the followings would execute faster in MySQL database. The table would have 200 - 1000 entries.
SELECT id
from TABLE
order by id desc
limit 1
or
SELECT count(id)
from TABLE
The story is the Table is cached. So this query is to be executed every time before cache retrieval to determine whether the cache data is invalid by comparing the previous value.
So if there exists a even less expensive query, please kindly let me know. Thanks.
If you
start from 1
never have any gaps
use the InnoDB engine
id is not nullable
Then the 2nd could run [ever so marginally] faster due to not having to visit table data at all (count is stored in metadata).
Otherwise,
if the table has NO index on ID (causing a SCAN), the 2nd one is faster
Barring both the above
the first one is faster
And if you actually meant to ask SELECT .. LIMIT 1 vs SELECT MAX(id).. then the answer is actually that they are the same for MySQL and most sane DBMS, whether or not there is an index.
I think, the first query will run faster, as the query is limited to be executed for one row only, 200-1000 may not matter that much in this case.
As already pointed out in the comments, your table is so small it really doesn't what your solution will be. For this reason the select count(id) should be used as it expresses the intent and doesn't need any further processing.
Now select count(id) comes with an alternative select count(*). These two are not synonyms. select count(*) will count the number of rows and use a cached value if possible when select count(id) counts the number of non null values of the column id exists. If the id columns is set as not null then the cached row count may be used.
The selection between count(*) and count(id) depends once again on your intent. In the general case, count(*) describes the intent better.
The there is the possibility of count(1) which is actually a synonym of count(*) when using mysql but the interpretation may vary if end up using a different RDBMS.
The performance of each type of count also varies depending on whether you are using MyISAM or InnoDB. The row counts are cached on the former but not on the latter, if I've understood correctly.
In the end, you should rely on query plans and running tests and measuring their performance rather than these general ramblings.
Related (SQL Server): Count(*) vs Count(1)
Could you please tell me what is better in performance (MySQL)? Count(*) or count(1)?
This is a MySQL answer.
They perform exactly the same - unless you are using MyISAM, then a special case for COUNT(*) exists. I always use COUNT(*) anyway.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/aggregate-functions.html#function_count
For MyISAM tables, COUNT(*) is optimized to return very quickly if the
SELECT retrieves from one table, no other columns are retrieved, and
there is no WHERE clause. For example:
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM student;
This optimization only applies to MyISAM
tables, because an exact row count is stored for this storage engine
and can be accessed very quickly. COUNT(1) is only subject to the same
optimization if the first column is defined as NOT NULL.
###EDIT
Some of you may have missed the dark attempt at humour. I prefer to keep this as a non-duplicate question for any such day when MySQL will do something different to SQL Server. So I threw a vote to reopen the question (with a clearly wrong answer).
The above MyISAM optimization applies equally to
COUNT(*)
COUNT(1)
COUNT(pk-column)
COUNT(any-non-nullable-column)
So the real answer is that they are always the same.
I know it's generally a bad idea to do queries like this:
SELECT * FROM `group_relations`
But when I just want the count, should I go for this query since that allows the table to change but still yields the same results.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM `group_relations`
Or the more specfic
SELECT COUNT(`group_id`) FROM `group_relations`
I have a feeling the latter could potentially be faster, but are there any other things to consider?
Update: I am using InnoDB in this case, sorry for not being more specific.
If the column in question is NOT NULL, both of your queries are equivalent. When group_id contains null values,
select count(*)
will count all rows, whereas
select count(group_id)
will only count the rows where group_id is not null.
Also, some database systems, like MySQL employ an optimization when you ask for count(*) which makes such queries a bit faster than the specific one.
Personally, when just counting, I'm doing count(*) to be on the safe side with the nulls.
If I remember it right, in MYSQL COUNT(*) counts all rows, whereas COUNT(column_name) counts only the rows that have a non-NULL value in the given column.
COUNT(*) count all rows while COUNT(column_name) will count only rows without NULL values in the specified column.
Important to note in MySQL:
COUNT() is very fast on MyISAM tables for * or not-null columns, since the row count is cached. InnoDB has no row count caching, so there is no difference in performance for COUNT(*) or COUNT(column_name), regardless if the column can be null or not. You can read more on the differences on this post at the MySQL performance blog.
if you try SELECT COUNT(1) FROMgroup_relations it will be a bit faster because it will not try to retrieve information from your columns.
Edit: I just did some research and found out that this only happens in some db. In sqlserver it's the same to use 1 or *, but on oracle it's faster to use 1.
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/9367c580-087a-4fc1-bf88-91a51a4ee018/
Apparently there is no difference between them in mysql, like sqlserver the parser appears to change the query to select(1). Sorry if I mislead you in some way.
I was curious about this myself. It's all fine to read documentation and theoretical answers, but I like to balance those with empirical evidence.
I have a MySQL table (InnoDB) that has 5,607,997 records in it. The table is in my own private sandbox, so I know the contents are static and nobody else is using the server. I think this effectively removes all outside affects on performance. I have a table with an auto_increment Primary Key field (Id) that I know will never be null that I will use for my where clause test (WHERE Id IS NOT NULL).
The only other possible glitch I see in running tests is the cache. The first time a query is run will always be slower than subsequent queries that use the same indexes. I'll refer to that below as the cache Seeding call. Just to mix it up a little I ran it with a where clause I know will always evaluate to true regardless of any data (TRUE = TRUE).
That said here are my results:
QueryType
| w/o WHERE | where id is not null | where true=true
COUNT()
| 9 min 30.13 sec ++ | 6 min 16.68 sec ++ | 2 min 21.80 sec ++
| 6 min 13.34 sec | 1 min 36.02 sec | 2 min 0.11 sec
| 6 min 10.06 se | 1 min 33.47 sec | 1 min 50.54 sec
COUNT(Id)
| 5 min 59.87 sec | 1 min 34.47 sec | 2 min 3.96 sec
| 5 min 44.95 sec | 1 min 13.09 sec | 2 min 6.48 sec
COUNT(1)
| 6 min 49.64 sec | 2 min 0.80 sec | 2 min 11.64 sec
| 6 min 31.64 sec | 1 min 41.19 sec | 1 min 43.51 sec
++This is considered the cache Seeding call. It is expected to be slower than the rest.
I'd say the results speak for themselves. COUNT(Id) usually edges out the others. Adding a Where clause dramatically decreases the access time even if it's a clause you know will evaluate to true. The sweet spot appears to be COUNT(Id)... WHERE Id IS NOT NULL.
I would love to see other peoples' results, perhaps with smaller tables or with where clauses against different fields than the field you're counting. I'm sure there are other variations I haven't taken into account.
Seek Alternatives
As you've seen, when tables grow large, COUNT queries get slow. I think the most important thing is to consider the nature of the problem you're trying to solve. For example, many developers use COUNT queries when generating pagination for large sets of records in order to determine the total number of pages in the result set.
Knowing that COUNT queries will grow slow, you could consider an alternative way to display pagination controls that simply allows you to side-step the slow query. Google's pagination is an excellent example.
Denormalize
If you absolutely must know the number of records matching a specific count, consider the classic technique of data denormalization. Instead of counting the number of rows at lookup time, consider incrementing a counter on record insertion, and decrementing that counter on record deletion.
If you decide to do this, consider using idempotent, transactional operations to keep those denormalized values in synch.
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO `group_relations` (`group_id`) VALUES (1);
UPDATE `group_relations_count` SET `count` = `count` + 1;
COMMIT;
Alternatively, you could use database triggers if your RDBMS supports them.
Depending on your architecture, it might make sense to use a caching layer like memcached to store, increment and decrement the denormalized value, and simply fall through to the slow COUNT query when the cache key is missing. This can reduce overall write-contention if you have very volatile data, though in cases like this, you'll want to consider solutions to the dog-pile effect.
MySQL ISAM tables should have optimisation for COUNT(*), skipping full table scan.
An asterisk in COUNT has no bearing with asterisk for selecting all fields of table. It's pure rubbish to say that COUNT(*) is slower than COUNT(field)
I intuit that select COUNT(*) is faster than select COUNT(field). If the RDBMS detected that you specify "*" on COUNT instead of field, it doesn't need to evaluate anything to increment count. Whereas if you specify field on COUNT, the RDBMS will always evaluate if your field is null or not to count it.
But if your field is nullable, specify the field in COUNT.
COUNT(*) facts and myths:
MYTH: "InnoDB doesn't handle count(*) queries well":
Most count(*) queries are executed same way by all storage engines if you have a WHERE clause, otherwise you InnoDB will have to perform a full table scan.
FACT: InnoDB doesn't optimize count(*) queries without the where clause
It is best to count by an indexed column such as a primary key.
SELECT COUNT(`group_id`) FROM `group_relations`
It should depend on what you are actually trying to achieve as Sebastian has already said, i.e. make your intentions clear! If you are just counting the rows then go for the COUNT(*), or counting a single column go for the COUNT(column).
It might be worth checking out your DB vendor too. Back when I used to use Informix it had an optimisation for COUNT(*) which had a query plan execution cost of 1 compared to counting single or mutliple columns which would result in a higher figure
if you try SELECT COUNT(1) FROM group_relations it will be a bit faster because it will not try to retrieve information from your columns.
COUNT(1) used to be faster than COUNT(*), but that's not true anymore, since modern DBMS are smart enough to know that you don't wanna know about columns
The advice I got from MySQL about things like this is that, in general, trying to optimize a query based on tricks like this can be a curse in the long run. There are examples over MySQL's history where somebody's high-performance technique that relies on how the optimizer works ends up being the bottleneck in the next release.
Write the query that answers the question you're asking -- if you want a count of all rows, use COUNT(*). If you want a count of non-null columns, use COUNT(col) WHERE col IS NOT NULL. Index appropriately, and leave the optimization to the optimizer. Trying to make your own query-level optimizations can sometimes make the built-in optimizer less effective.
That said, there are things you can do in a query to make it easier for the optimizer to speed it up, but I don't believe COUNT is one of them.
Edit: The statistics in the answer above are interesting, though. I'm not sure whether there is actually something at work in the optimizer in this case. I'm just talking about query-level optimizations in general.
I know it's generally a bad idea to do
queries like this:
SELECT * FROM `group_relations`
But when I just want the count, should
I go for this query since that allows
the table to change but still yields
the same results.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM `group_relations`
As your question implies, the reason SELECT * is ill-advised is that changes to the table could require changes in your code. That doesn't apply to COUNT(*). It's pretty rare to want the specialized behavior that SELECT COUNT('group_id') gives you - typically you want to know the number of records. That's what COUNT(*) is for, so use it.