Can I prevent using filesort in mysql when field on which condition in one table and field on which order in another. Can use index in this situation? Both tables are large - more than 1 million records
You are dealing with 1 million records, definitely you need to add indexing to gain some speed otherwise it will be overkill anyone visiting you site.
You need to closely examine which fields you will be add indexing to. Thanks
You need to carefully look at the indexes using explain.
If there are where clauses, either add the column you are ordering by to the index being used for that table as well and see if it gets rid of the filesort, or if its not currently using one for that table (which I doubt is the case with that many records) then just create a new one.
Also worth flagging, which someone else may be able to offer more info on, is that mysql often (or always?) can't use an index to sort DESC - I've been in a situation before where its been performant to have a computed field that will index in reverse order, and order by that ASC.
EG: If you have an integer field that you want to order by DESC, add a field where you store the integer value subtracted from 1000000000 (or some other large number), index it, and order by that field ascending.
As I say, I can't remember specifics, it may affect older mysql only or something, but have a feeling its a current limitation.
Related
I'm not clear how to search for this, if there's a duplicate feel free to point me to it.
I'm wondering if there's a way to tell mysql that something will be sorted before filtering so that it can perform the filter with a binary search instead of a linear search.
For example, consider a table with columns id, value, and created_at
id is an auto-increment and created_at is a timestamp field with default of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
then consider the following query:
SELECT *
FROM `table`
WHERE created_at BETWEEN '2022-10-05' AND '2022-10-06'
ORDER BY id
Because I have context on the data that mysql doesn't, namely that if id is sorted then created_at will also be sorted, I can conclude that we can binary search on created_at. However mysql does a full table scan for the filter as it's unaware of, or unwilling to assume this fact. The explain on the query on my test dataset shows that it's scanning all 50 rows to return the 24 that match the filter, when it's possible to do it by only scanning approximately log2(50) rows. This isn't a huge difference for my test dataset but on larger data it can have an impact.
I'll note that the obvious answer here is to add an index on created_at, but on more real life queries that's not always possible. For example if you were filtering on another indexed column it wouldn't be able to use that created_at index, but we might still be able to make assumptions about the ordering based on other order bys.
Anyway, after all that setup my question is: Is there a way that I can tell MySQL that I know that this data is already sorted so that it need not perform a table scan? Something similar to FORCE INDEX that can be used to overwrite the behaviour of picking an index for a query
The answer is no in general.
InnoDB queries read rows in order by the index used. So in your case if there's an index on created_at, it'll read rows in that order, ascending. There's no way to tell the optimizer that this matches the order of id too, and the optimizer won't make that assumption.
So the bottom line is that it'll have to perform a filesort on the matching rows to guarantee they're in order by id.
The comment above suggests ORDER BY created_at would solve the problem in the example you show. That is, if you know that the order of created_at is the same order as id, then just ORDER BY created_at, and the filesort can be skipped. That is, the optimizer knows the ORDER BY you requested is actually the order it read the rows from the index, so sorting is a no-op.
But I assume your example was only one case among many potential cases, and it might not be the right solution to use in other cases.
But why was the query doing a table-scan?
In the example you give of a table-scan of 50 rows, it's possible the optimizer decided not to use the index because the table-scan is so little work that the extra indirection of using the index isn't worth it. This is why we need to fill a table with at least a few hundred rows during testing, before we know if an index improves the query.
Another possible reason for the table-scan is that the range of dates covers a significantly large part of the table. In my experience, if the condition matches over 20% of the table, then the optimizer says, "meh, not worth the effort to use the index, so I'll just do a table-scan." That 20% figure is not an officially documented threshold, it's just my observation.
FORCE INDEX might help the latter case. FORCE INDEX really just tells the optimizer to assume a table-scan is infinitely costly, so if the named index is relevant at all to the search conditions, then use the index instead of a table-scan. It's possible though to use FORCE INDEX and name an index that is irrelevant to the search conditions. In that case, the optimizer still won't use the index, it'll just feel shame over having to do a table-scan.
Because I have context on the data that mysql doesn't, namely that if id is sorted then created_at will also be sorted...
Give MySQL that information: order by created_at, id and make sure created_at is indexed. This will allow MySQL to use the created_at index to filter and also do most of the ordering. If this is still slow, try adding a composite index of (created_at, id).
Also, upgrade MySQL. 5.6 reached the end of its life last year. MySQL 8 is considerably better at optimizing queries.
I'm working with MySQL 5.6. In all of my use-cases I build a read-only table to then query.
The common use-case of my customers is to sort results by insertion order. We even added a column with index that defines insertion order. The dilemma is if we should inject an "ORDER BY" to queries (unless another sort was requested by users).
One of the guys said it might hurt performance, which sounds reasonable. He also said that there is no configuration that ensures table's order since table might be updates - although in our case the table is always read-only.
Is there a way to define a read-only table that does ensure a specific order to avoid injecting "ORDER BY" in every query? Meaning it will somehow save the table in a defined order to avoid performance penalty?
Will be happy for any suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
No. SQL tables represent unordered sets. There is no ordering in the table unless you specify an order by.
What you can do is have an index on the column you want to order by. Then, MySQL does not actually need to sort the data -- it just needs to read the index. Or, if you can, you can make the column you want to order by a primary key. This makes sense if your column is really an auto_increment column.
In our application, we have a page that displays user a set of data, a part of it actually. It also allows user to order it by a custom field. So in the end it all comes down to query like this:
SELECT name, info, description FROM mytable
WHERE active = 1 -- Some filtering by indexed column
ORDER BY name LIMIT 0,50; -- Just a part of it
And this worked just fine, as long as the size of table is relatively small (used only locally in our department). But now we have to scale this application. And let's assume, the table has about a million of records (we expect that to happen soon). What will happen with ordering? Do I understand correctly, that in order to do this query, MySQL will have to sort a million records each time and give a part of it? This seems like a very resource-heavy operation.
My idea is simply to turn off that feature and don't let users select their custom ordering (maybe just filtering), so that the order would be a natural one (by id in descending order, I believe the indexing can handle that).
Or is there a way to make this query work much faster with ordering?
UPDATE:
Here is what I read from the official MySQL developer page.
In some cases, MySQL cannot use indexes to resolve the ORDER BY,
although it still uses indexes to find the rows that match the WHERE
clause. These cases include the following:
....
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;
So yes, it does seem like mysql will have a problem with such a query? So, what do I do - don't use an order part at all?
The 'problem' here seems to be that you have 2 requirements (in the example)
active = 1
order by name LIMIT 0, 50
The former you can easily solve by adding an index on the active field
The latter you can improve by adding an index on name
Since you do both in the same query, you'll need to combine this into an index that lets you resolve the active value quickly and then from there on fetches the first 50 names.
As such, I'd guess that something like this will help you out:
CREATE INDEX idx_test ON myTable (active, name)
(in theory, as always, try before you buy!)
Keep in mind though that there is no such a thing as a free lunch; you'll need to consider that adding an index also comes with downsides:
the index will make your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements (slightly) slower, usually the effect is negligible but only testing will show
the index will require extra space in de database, think of it as an additional (hidden) special table sitting next to your actual data. The index will only hold the fields required + the PK of the originating table, which usually is a lot less data then the entire table, but for 'millions of rows' it can add up.
if your query selects one or more fields that are not part of the index, then the system will have to fetch the matching PK fields from the index first and then go look for the other fields in the actual table by means of the PK. This probably is still (a lot) faster than when not having the index, but keep this in mind when doing something like SELECT * FROM ... : do you really need all the fields?
In the example you use active and name but from the text I get that these might be 'dynamic' in which case you'd have to foresee all kinds of combinations. From a practical point this might not be feasible as each index will come with the downsides of above and each time you add an index you'll add supra to that list again (cumulative).
PS: I use PK for simplicity but in MSSQL it's actually the fields of the clustered index, which USUALLY is the same thing. I'm guessing MySQL works similarly.
Explain your query, and check, whether it goes for filesort,
If Order By doesnt get any index or if MYSQL optimizer prefers to avoid the existing index(es) for sorting, it goes with filesort.
Now, If you're getting filesort, then you should preferably either avoid ORDER BY or you should create appropriate index(es).
if the data is small enough, it does operations in Memory else it goes on the disk.
so you may try and change the variable < sort_buffer_size > as well.
there are always tradeoffs, one way to improve the preformance of order query is to set the buffersize and then the run the order by query which improvises the performance of the query
set sort_buffer_size=100000;
<>
If this size is further increased then the performance will start decreasing
How does mysql return lines when there is no ORDER BY in the request?
What drives the natural order?
There can obviously be many different queries but let's say a simple
select column from table where date < NOW()
There is no natural predictable order when you don't specify one.
Be very careful with this. For all SQL there is no defined implied order. Never count on this. Even if you see a specific behavior at a point in time, that could change in a future release or even with the adding of an index. If you are expecting an order and counting on it, the specify it explicitly.
Problem is that "natural order" of results is often affected completely or partly by the access plan the DB engine uses. For instance, if you do a group by FieldA there is a good chance (not a guarantee) that the results will come back in FieldA sequence. If you do a very simple select chances are the results will be in the sequence they are stored in the database, which may or may not be the order of the IDs or the primary key. IF you don't specify the order it is giving the DB engine the option to do whatever is most convenient for it at the time based on how it got the results. So really does become unpredictable and open to change.
Wish I could explain better, but trying to convey the real randomness of the process form an observer viewpoint.
If the query is using an index, it will prefer the ordering of that index. Group by forces an ordering. This is why combining group by and order can have a performance penalty.
In your case, if you have an index on date, it will probably order by that, hard to say how it handles tie breaks though. For more information, as usual explain the query.
Of course there's a caveat to ordering on the index used as well. If the index is on an autoincremented field and the data was added with prespecified ids, you may find it prefers the order the data was added in.
In my Java application I have found a small performance issue, which is caused by such simple query:
SELECT DISTINCT a
FROM table
WHERE checked = 0
LIMIT 10000
I have index on the checked column.
In the beginning, the query is very fast (i.e. where almost all rows have checked = 0). But as I mark more and more rows as checked, the query becomes greatly inefficient (up to several minutes).
How can I improve the performance of this query ? Should I add a complex index
a, checked
or rather
checked, a?
My table has a lot of millions of rows, that is why I do not want to test it manually and hope to have lucky guess.
I would add an index on checked, a. This means that the value you're returning has already been found in the index and there's no need to re-access the table to find it. Secondly if you're doing lot's of individual updates of the table there's a good chance both the table and the index have become fragmented on the disc. Rebuilding (compacting) a table and index can significantly increase performance.
You can also use the query rewritten as (just in case the optimizer does not understand that it's equivalent):
SELECT a
FROM table
WHERE checked = 0
GROUP BY a
LIMIT 10000
Add a compound index on the DISTINCT column (a in this case). MySQL is able to use this index for the DISTINCT.
MySQL may also take profit of a compound index on (a, checked) (the order matters, the DISTINCT column has to be at the start of the index). Try both and compare the results with your data and your queries.
(After adding this index you should see Using index for group-by in the EXPLAIN output.)
See GROUP BY optimization on the manual. (A DISTINCT is very similar to a GROUP BY.)
The most efficient way to process GROUP BY is when an index is used to directly retrieve the grouping columns. With this access method, MySQL uses the property of some index types that the keys are ordered (for example, BTREE). This property enables use of lookup groups in an index without having to consider all keys in the index that satisfy all WHERE conditions.>
My table has a lot of millions of rows <...> where almost all rows have
checked=0
In this case it seems that the best index would be a simple (a).
UPDATE:
It was not clear how many rows get checked. From your comment bellow the question:
At the beginning 0 is in 100% rows, but at the end of the day it will
become 0%
This changes everything. So #Ben has the correct answer.
I have found a completely different solution which would do the trick. I will simple create a new table with all possible unique "a" values. This will allow me to avoid DISTINCT
You don't state it, but are you updating the index regularly? As changes occur to the underlying data, the index becomes less and less accurate and processing gets worse and worse. If you have an index on checked, and checked is being updated over time, you need to make sure your index is updated accordingly on a regular basis.