I have a table with 100 columns (yes, code smell and arguably a potentially less optimized design). The table has an 'id' as PK. No other column is indexed.
So, if I fire a query like:
SELECT first_name from EMP where id = 10
Will SQL Server (or any other RDBMS) have to load the entire row (all columns) in memory and then return only the first_name?
(In other words - the page that contains the row id = 10 if it isn't in the memory already)
I think the answer is yes! unless it has column markers within a row. I understand there might be optimization techniques, but is it a default behavior?
[EDIT]
After reading some of your comments, I realized I asked an XY question unintentionally. Basically, we have tables with 100s of millions of rows with 100 columns each and receive all sorts of SELECT queries on them. The WHERE clause also changes but no incoming request needs all columns. Many of those cell values are also NULL.
So, I was thinking of exploring a column-oriented database to achieve better compression and faster retrieval. My understanding is that column-oriented databases will load only the requested columns. Yes! Compression will help too to save space and hopefully performance as well.
For MySQL: Indexes and data are stored in "blocks" of 16KB. Each level of the B+Tree holding the PRIMARY KEY in your case needs to be accessed. For example a million rows, that is 3 blocks. Within the leaf block, there are probably dozens of rows, with all their columns (unless a column is "too big"; but that is a different discussion).
For MariaDB's Columnstore: The contents of one columns for 64K rows is held in a packed, compressed structure that varies in size and structure. Before getting to that, the clump of 64K rows must be located. After getting it, it must be unpacked.
In both cases, the structure of the data on disk is a compromises between speed and space for both simple and complex queries.
Your simple query is easy and efficient to doing a regular RDBMS, but messier to do in a Columnstore. Columnstore is a niche market in which your query is abnormal.
Be aware that fetching blocks are typically the slowest part of performing the query, especially when I/O is required. There is a cache of blocks in RAM.
Related
I've been doing some load testing of AWS Redshift for a new application, and I noticed that it has a column limit of 1600 per table. Worse, queries slow down as the number of columns increases in a table.
What doesn't make any sense here is that Redshift is supposed to be a column-store database, and there shouldn't in theory be an I/O hit from columns that are not selected in a particular where clause.
More specifically, when TableName is 1600 columns, I found that the below query is substantially slower than if TableName were, say, 1000 columns and the same number of rows. As the number of columns decreases, performance improves.
SELECT COUNT(1) FROM TableName
WHERE ColumnName LIKE '%foo%'
My three questions are:
What's the deal? Why does Redshift have this limitation if it claims to be a column store?
Any suggestions for working around this limitation? Joins of multiple smaller tables seems to eventually approximate the performance of a single table. I haven't tried pivoting the data.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a fast, real-time performance, horizontally scalable column-store database that doesn't have the above limitations? All we're doing is count queries with simple where restrictions against approximately 10M (rows) x 2500 (columns) data.
I can't explain precisely why it slows down so much but I can verify that we've experienced the same thing.
I think part of the issue is that Redshift stores a minimum of 1MB per column per node. Having a lot of columns creates a lot of disk seek activity and I/O overhead.
1MB blocks are problematic because most of that will be empty space but it will still be read off of the disk
Having lots of blocks means that column data will not be located as close together so Redshift has to do a lot more work to find them.
Also, (just occurred to me) I suspect that Redshift's MVCC controls add a lot of overhead. It tries to ensure you get a consistent read while your query is executing and presumably that requires making a note of all the blocks for tables in your query, even blocks for columns that are not used. Why is an implicit table lock being released prior to end of transaction in RedShift?
FWIW, our columns were virtually all BOOLEAN and we've had very good results from compacting them (bit masking) into INT/BIGINTs and accessing the values using the bit-wise functions. One example table went from 1400 cols (~200GB) to ~60 cols (~25GB) and the query times improved more than 10x (30-40 down to 1-2 secs).
I have a table that has 50 fields:
10 Fields that are almost always needed.
40 Fields that are very rarely needed.
I would roughly say that the fields in (1) are needed to be accessed 1000 times more frequently than the fields in (2).
Should I split them to two tables with one-to-one relation, or keep all in the same table?
The process that you are describing is sometimes referred to as "vertical partitioning". Taken to an extreme (one column per vertical partition), this is how columnar databases store data. Unfortunately (to the best of my knowledge), Postgres does not currently have direct support for vertical partitioning.
Your idea of splitting the data into two tables is fine. I would note the following:
You will need to modify queries that use the extra columns to use the second table. (You can wrap the join into a view which you use when you want the extra columns.)
If both tables have a clustered primary key that connects them, then the join should be really fast.
If you are inserting/updating/deleting data, then you need to be careful about synchronization. I think you can handle this with an INSTEAD OF trigger on a view combining the tables.
If some records do not have extra columns, this can be a big win on the space side.
If all records and all columns are going to be loaded into the cache, then this probably is not a big win.
This can be a big performance win, under some circumstances. But there is additional manual work to keep the tables synchronized.
There's really not nearly enough information here to estimate (never mind actually quantify) what the benefits might be, but the costs are very clear -- more complex code, a more complex schema, probably greater overall space usage, and a performance overhead when adding and removing rows.
A performance improvement might come from scanning a smaller amount of data when performing a full table scan, or from an increased likelihood in finding data blocks in memory when required, and an overall smaller memory footprint, but without specific information on the types of operation commonly performed, and whether the server is under memory pressure, no reliable advice can be given.
Be very wary of making your system more complex as a side-effect of uncertain performance gains.
This question already has answers here:
select * vs select column
(12 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a rails/backbone single page application processing a lot of SQL queries.
Is this request:
SELECT * FROM `posts` WHERE `thread_id` = 1
faster than this one:
SELECT `id` FROM `posts` WHERE `thread_id` = 1
How big is the impact of selecting unused columns on the query execution time?
For all practical purposes, when looking for a single row, the difference is negligible. As the number of result rows increases, the difference can become more and more important, but as long as you have an index on thread_id and you are not more than 10-20% of all the rows in the table, here is still not a big issue. FYI the differentiation factor comes from the fact that selecting * will force, for each row, an additional lookup in the primary index. Selecting only id can be satisfied just by looking up the secondary index on thread_id.
There is also the obvious cost associated with any large field, like BLOB documents or big test fields. If the posts fields have values measuring tens of KBs, then obviously retrieving them adds extra transfer cost.
All these assume a normal execution engine, with B-Tree or ISAM row-mode storage. Almost all 'tables' and engines would fall into this category. The difference would be significant if you would be talking about a columnar storage, because columnar storage only reads the columns of interests and reading extra columns unnecessary impacts more visible such storage engines.
Having or not having an index on thread_id will have a hugely more visible impact. Make sure you have it.
Selecting fewer columns is generally faster. Unfortunately, it is hard to say exactly how much the time difference will be. It may depend on things like how many columns there are and what data is in them (for example, large CLOBS can take longer to fetch than simple integers), what indexes have been set up, and the network latency between you and the database server.
For a definitive answer on the time difference, the best I can say is do both queries and see how long each takes.
There will be two components: The query time and the I/O time (you could also break down the I/O into server I/O and server-client (network) I/O).
Selecting just one column will be faster in both respects - certainly because there's less data to fetch and transmit, but also because the column in question could be a part of whatever index is used to find the data, so the server may not have to look up the actual data pages - it may be able to pull the data directly from the index.
The performance difference is almost certainly insignificant for your application. Try it and see whether you can detect a difference; it is very simple to try.
I have a single large denormalized table that mirrors the make up of a fixed length flat file that is loaded yearly. 112 columns and 400,000 records. I have a unique clustered index on the 3 columns that make up the where clause of the query that is run most against this table. Index Frag is .01. Performance on the query is good, sub second. However, returning all the records takes almost 2 minutes. The execution plan shows 100% of the cost is on a Clustered Index Scan (not seek).
There are no queries that require a join (due to the denorm). The table is used for reporting. All fields are type nvarchar (of the length of the field in the data file).
Beyond normalizing the table. What else can I do to improve performance.
Try paginating the query. You can split the results into, let's say, groups of 100 rows. That way, your users will see the results pretty quickly. Also, if they don't need to see all the data every time they view the results, it will greatly cut down the amount of data retrieved.
Beyond this, adding parameters to the query that filter the data will reduce the amount of data returned.
This post is a good way to get started with pagination: SQL Pagination Query with order by
Just replace the "50" and "100" in the answer to use page variables and you're good to go.
Here are three ideas. First, if you don't need nvarchar, switch these to varchar. That will halve the storage requirement and should make things go faster.
Second, be sure that the lengths of the fields are less than nvarchar(4000)/varchar(8000). Anything larger causes the values to be stored on a separate page, increasing retrieval time.
Third, you don't say how you are retrieving the data. If you are bringing it back into another tool, such as Excel, or through ODBC, there may be other performance bottlenecks.
In the end, though, you are retrieving a large amount of data, so you should expect the time to be much longer than for retrieving just a handful of rows.
When you ask for all rows, you'll always get a scan.
400,000 rows X 112 columns X 17 bytes per column is 761,600,000 bytes. (I pulled 17 out of thin air.) Taking two minutes to move 3/4 of a gig across the network isn't bad. That's roughly the throughput of my server's scheduled backup to disk.
Do you have money for a faster network?
So, it seems to me like a query on a table with 10k records and a query on a table with 10mil records are almost equally fast if they are both fetching roughly the same number of records and making good use of simple indexes(auto increment, record id type indexed field).
My question is, will this extend to a table with close to 4 billion records if it is indexed properly and the database is set up in such a way that queries always use those indexes effectively?
Also, I know that inserting new records in to a very large indexed table can be very slow because all the indexes have to be recalculated, if I add new records only to the end of the table can I avoid that slow down, or will that not work because the index is a binary tree and a large chunk of the tree will still have to be recalculated?
Finally, I looked around a bit for a FAQs/caveats about working with very large tables, but couldn't really find one, so if anyone knows of something like that, that link would be appreciated.
Here is some good reading about large tables and the effects of indexing on them, including cost/benefit, as you requested:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_indexing_power.htm
Indexing very large tables (as with anything database related) depends on many factors, incuding your access patterns, ratio of Reads to Writes and size of available RAM.
If you can fit your 'hot' (i.e. frequently accessed index pages) into memory then accesses will generally be fast.
The strategy used to index very large tables, is using partitioned tables and partitioned indexes. BUT if your query does not join or filter on the partition key then there will no improvement in performance over an unpartitioned table i.e. no partition elimination.
SQL Server Database Partitioning Myths and Truths
Oracle Partitioned Tables and Indexes
It's very important to keep your indexes as narrow as possible.
Kimberly Tripp's The Clustered Index Debate Continues...(SQL Server)
Accessing the data via a unique index lookup will slow down as the table gets very large, but not by much. The index is stored as a B-tree structure in Postgres (not binary tree which only has two children per node), so a 10k row table might have 2 levels whereas a 10B row table might have 4 levels (depending on the width of the rows). So as the table gets ridiculously large it might go to 5 levels or higher, but this only means one extra page read so is probably not noticeable.
When you insert new rows, you cant control where they are inserted in the physical layout of the table so I assume you mean "end of the table" in terms of using the maximum value being indexed. I know Oracle has some optimisations around leaf block splitting in this case, but I dont know about Postgres.
If it is indexed properly, insert performance may be impacted more than select performance. Indexes in PostgreSQL have vast numbers of options which can allow you to index part of a table or the output of an immutable function on tuples in the table. Also size of the index, assuming it is usable, will affect speed much more slowly than will the actual scan of the table. The biggest difference is between searching a tree and scanning a list. Of course you still have disk I/O and memory overhead that goes into index usage, and so large indexes don't perform as well as they theoretically could.