EXPLAIN EXTENDED

From Stack Overflow:

I have a query where I have a custom developed UDF that is used to calculate whether or not certain points are within a polygon (first query in UNION) or circular (second query in UNION) shape.

SELECT  a.geo_boundary_id, …
FROM     geo_boundary_vertex a, …
…
GROUP BY
        a.geo_boundary_id
UNION
SELECT  b.geo_boundary_id, …
FROM     geo_boundary b, …
…
GROUP BY
        b.geo_boundary_id

When I run an explain for the query I get filesort for both queries within the UNION.

Now, I can split the queries up and use the ORDER BY NULL trick to get rid of the filesort however when I attempt to add that to the end of a UNION it doesn't work.

How do I get rid of the filesort?

In MySQL, GROUP BY also implies ORDER BY on the same set of expressions in the same order. That's why it adds an additional filesort operation to sort the resultset if it does not come out naturally sorted (say, from an index).

This is not always a desired behavior, and MySQL manual suggests adding ORDER BY NULL to the queries where sorting is not required. This can improve performance of the queries.

Let's create a sample table and see:

Read the rest of this entry »

Answering questions asked on the site.

Victor asks:

I have a table which I will call sale to protect the innocent:

Sale

id	product	price	amount	date

I need to retrieve ultimate values of price, amount and date for each product:

SELECT  product,
        MIN(price), MAX(price),
        MIN(amount), MAX(amount),
        MIN(date), MAX(date)
FROM    sale
GROUP BY
        product

The query only returns about 100 records.

I have all these fields indexed (together with product), but this still produces a full table scan over 3,000,000 records.

How do I speed up this query?

To retrieve the ultimate values of the fields, MySQL would just need to make a loose index scan over each index and take the max and min value of the field for each product.

However, the optimizer won't do when multiple indexes are involved. Instead, it will revert to a full scan.

There is a workaround for it. Let's create a sample table and see them:

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently I had to deal with several scenarios which required processing and aggregating continuous series of data.

I believe this could be best illustrated with an example:

The records are ordered by id, and within this order there are continuous series of records which share the same value of source. In the table above, the series are separated by thick lines.

We want to calculate some aggregates across each of the series: MIN, MAX, SUM, AVG, whatever:

This can be used for different things. I used that for:

• Reading sensors from a moving elevator (thus tracking its position)
• Recording user's activity on a site
• Tracking the primary node in a server cluster

, but almost any seasoned database developer can recall a need for such a query.

As you can see, the values of source are repeating so a mere GROUP BY won't work here.

In the systems supporting window functions there is a workaround for that:

Read the rest of this entry »

Answering questions asked on the site.

Aryé asks:

Thanks for your article about late row lookups in MySQL.

I have two questions for you please:

• Is this workaround specific to MyISAM engine?
• How does PostgreSQL handle this?

The questions concerns a certain workaround for MySQL LIMIT … OFFSET queries like this:

SELECT  *
FROM    mytable
ORDER BY
        id
LIMIT   10
OFFSET  10000

which can be improved using a little rewrite:

SELECT  m.*
FROM    (
        SELECT  id
        FROM    mytable
        ORDER BY
                id
        LIMIT   10
        OFFSET  10000
        ) q
JOIN    mytable m
ON      m.id = q.id
ORDER BY
        m.id

For the rationale behind this improvement, please read the original article.

Now, to the questions.

The second questions is easy: PostgreSQL won't pull the fields from the table until it really needs them. If a query involving an ORDER BY along with LIMIT and OFFSET is optimized to use the index for the ORDER BY part, the table lookups won't happen for the records skipped.

Though PostgreSQL does not reflect the table lookups in the EXPLAIN output, a simple test would show us that they are done only LIMIT times, not OFFSET + LIMIT (like MySQL does).

Now, let's try to answer the first question: will this trick improve the queries against an InnoDB table?

To do this, we will create a sample table:

Read the rest of this entry »

Some say SQL is not good at graphics.

Well, they have some point. Database engines lack scanner drivers, there is no easy way to do sepia, and magic wand, let's be honest, is just poor.

However, you can make some New Year paintings with SQL.

Let's make a New Year clock showing 12 o'clock in Oracle.

Read the rest of this entry »

Answering questions asked on the site.

Jan Suchal asks:

We've started playing with PostgreSQL and recursive queries. Looking at example that does basic graph traversal from http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/queries-with.html.

We would like to have a view called paths defined like this:

WITH RECURSIVE
        search_graph(id, path) AS
        (
        SELECT  id, ARRAY[id]
        FROM    node
        UNION ALL
        SELECT  g.dest, sg.path || g.dest
        FROM    search_graph sg
        JOIN    graph g
        ON      g.source = sg.id
                AND NOT g.dest = ANY(sg.path)
        )
SELECT  path
FROM    search_graph

By calling

SELECT  *
FROM    paths
WHERE   path[1] = :node_id

we would get all paths from a certain node.

The problem here is with performance. When you want this to be quick you need to add a condition for the anchor part of the UNION like this:

WITH RECURSIVE
        search_graph(id, path) AS
        (
        SELECT  id, ARRAY[id]
        FROM    node
        WHERE   id = :node_id
        UNION ALL
        SELECT  g.dest, sg.path || g.dest
        FROM    search_graph sg
        JOIN    graph g
        ON      g.source = sg.id
                AND NOT g.dest = ANY(sg.path)
        )
SELECT  path
FROM    search_graph

Now it's perfectly fast, but we cannot create a view because that would only contain paths from one specific node.

Any ideas?

An often overlooked feature of PostgreSQL is its ability to create set-returning functions and use them in SELECT list.

The record will be cross-joined with the set returned by the function and the result of the join will be added to the resultset.

This is best demonstrated with generate_series, probably a most used PostgreSQL set-returning function.
Read the rest of this entry »

(I just discovered cracked.com)

#10. Searching for a NULL

SELECT  *
FROM    a
WHERE   a.column = NULL

In SQL, a NULL is never equal to anything, even another NULL. This query won't return anything and in fact will be thrown out by the optimizer when building the plan.

When searching for NULL values, use this instead:

SELECT  *
FROM    a
WHERE   a.column IS NULL

Read the rest of this entry »

From Stack Overflow:

I have a table of blog posts, each with a foreign key back to it's author. There are less than 15,000 entries in this table.

This query scans over 19,000 rows (per EXPLAIN), requires a filesort (that might be regular MySQL behavior), and takes over 400ms to return 5 rows. possibly because of the complicated WHERE used to check if the item is actually published.

SELECT  blog_post.id,
        blog_post.title,
        blog_post.author_id,
        blog_post.has_been_fact_checked,
        blog_post.published_date,
        blog_post.ordering,
        auth_user.username,
        auth_user.email
FROM    blog_post
INNER JOIN
        auth_user
ON      auth_user.id = blog_post.author_id
WHERE   blog_post.is_approved = 1
        AND blog_post.has_been_fact_checked = 1
        AND blog_post.published_date < =  '2010-10-25 22:40:05'
ORDER BY
        blog_post.published_date DESC,
        blog_post.ordering ASC,
        blog_post.id DESC
LIMIT 5

How can I wrangle this query under control?

This query is quite simple: a filtering condition with two equalities and a range and an order by. The range in the filter fits the ORDER BY perfectly, so the whole query could be executed using an index scan without any filesorts.

The only problem is that we have the mixed directions in ORDER BY, and MySQL does not support ASC / DESC clauses for the indexes.

With a simple table redesign, the problem could easily be solved: we would just need to reverse the order in the ordering column, say, by creating its copy and storing negative values in it. This way, we could just create a composite index (with all columns ascending) and rewrite the query to use the reverse column instead. That's what many engines do, MediaWiki (which Wikipedia runs on) being one of the most well-known examples.

This solution is nice, I hear people saying, but requires a database redesign which as we all know is never as simple as some development pundits on their blogs seem to think.

OK, this is a good point. Let's see what we can do with the current design, and, as always, create a sample table to do it:
Read the rest of this entry »

Answering questions asked on the site.

Beren asks:

In my database, I store the information about the game matches.

A match can be played between two players (mostly) or, occasionally, between two teams of 2, 3 or 4 players.

I store the matches in a table like this:

Game

id	player1	player2	type

, where type is ENUM(player, team).

If type is player, the ids of players are stored in the record; if type is team, those of teams are stored.

Now, the tricky part. For a given game, I need to select two lists of players from both sides, comma separated, be they single players or members of a team.

Are two separate queries required for this?

This of course can be easily done using a single query.

Let's make a sample table and see:
Read the rest of this entry »

Answering questions asked on the site.

Denis Kuzmenok asks:

I need some help with a query I'm fighting with.

I have these tables:

Product

id	parent	name

Site

id	region	name

Price

id	product	site	value

For the products with a certain product.parent, I need to select minimal and maximal price within the given site.region, and return first 10 products ordered by the minimal price.

Each parent has 100 to 10,000 products, and there are 10,000,000 records in price table.

We have a classical OLAP task here: a fact table (price) and two dimension tables (product and site).

The task would be almost trivial if we were given the exact values of product and site. This way, we could build a composite index on these fields and value, filter on the exact values and get the first 10 values from the index.

However, we are given not the values of the dimensions themselves but those of the higher levels (parent for product and region for site).

Since the values of the levels are not stored in the facts table, we cannot index them. We need to join the dimension tables and filter on them.

This article describes four ways to join the tables, their efficiency varying depending on the density of the dimension values.

Since the only algorithm to make the joins MySQL is capable of is nested loops, basically, we need to define the order in which the tables would be joined.

There are three tables and, hence, 3! = 6 permutations that define all possible join orders:

However, two dimension tables are completely independent on each other. This means that if they come one after another in the join their order does not actually matter: they both will be searched for independent values. This reduces the number of actual combinations:

The joins must be designed so that the tables with most selective conditions go first. This means that the join order is determined by the density of the values satisfying the criteria. The more values from the table satisfy the search criteria, the later should the table come in the join, so that by the time the join occurs, most values would have been already sifted out.

Now, let's build the queries for all types of the join. To do this, we will create sample tables:
Read the rest of this entry »