I want to extract record of person from table (employ) and I write query
SELECT *
FROM employ
WHERE employ_Id=some_specific_id
Now my question is what this query does first, mean this will first go to the table(employ) and selects all the records and then apply filter on it or just go the table(employ) and find record of the employ with the specific id given after WHERE clause.
1) Table records are mostly stored in order of primary key (known as clustered index). So, when you use primary key as where condition then rdbms doesn't requires to scan table (all records)
2) For other then primary key. Rdbms checks if index is created on table and if can be used for your where condition. so, it can avoid full table scan.
3) If non of above is possible then full table scan if performed.
When executing a query, it will look through ALL ROWS to see if they match your condition. This is why the more data you have, the longer the query will take.
If your condition is an index, as I believe is the case in your query, assuming empId is a primary key of that table, then the search will only be on that sorted index which will be much faster as not all the rows will need to be checked.
1-> At first control will check for the table in user_tab data dictionary.
2->Then will check for column availability in the table if the column exists the check for the where condition.
3-> Condition may or may not true, the control will go to select columns
Related
The problem
Using PostgreSQL 13, I ran into a performance issue selecting the highest id from a view that joins two tables, depending on the select statement I execute.
Here's a sample setup:
CREATE TABLE test1 (
id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
joincol VARCHAR
);
CREATE TABLE test2 (
joincol VARCHAR
);
CREATE INDEX ON test1 (id);
CREATE INDEX ON test1 (joincol);
CREATE INDEX ON test2 (joincol);
CREATE VIEW testview AS (
SELECT test1.id,
test1.joincol AS t1charcol,
test2.joincol AS t2charcol
FROM test1, test2
WHERE test1.joincol = test2.joincol
);
What I found out
I'm executing two statements which result in completely different execution plans and runtimes. The following statement executes in less than 100ms. As far as I understand the execution plan, the runtime is independent of the rowcount, since Postgres iterates the rows one by one (starting at the highest id, using the index) until a join on a row is possible and immediately returns.
SELECT id FROM testview ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1;
However, this one takes over 1 second on average (depending on rowcount), since the two tables are "joined completely", before Postgres uses the index to select the highest id.
SELECT MAX(id) FROM testview;
Please refer to this sample on dbfiddle to check the explain plans:
https://www.db-fiddle.com/f/bkMNeY6zXqBAYUsprJ5eWZ/1
My real environment
On my real environment test1 contains only a hand full of rows (< 100), having unique values in joincol. test2 contains up to ~10M rows, where joincol always matches a value of test1's joincol. test2's joincol is not nullable.
The actual question
Why does Postgres not recognize that it could use an Index Scan Backward on row basis for the second select? Is there anything I could improve on the tables/indexes?
Queries not strictly equivalent
why does Postgres not recognize that it could use a Index Scan Backward on row basis for the second select?
To make the context clear:
max(id) excludes NULL values. But ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 does not.
NULL values sort last in ascending sort order, and first in descending. So an Index Scan Backward might not find the greatest value (according to max()) first, but any number of NULL values.
The formal equivalent of:
SELECT max(id) FROM testview;
is not:
SELECT id FROM testview ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1;
but:
SELECT id FROM testview ORDER BY id DESC NULLS LAST LIMIT 1;
The latter query doesn't get the fast query plan. But it would with an index with matching sort order: (id DESC NULLS LAST).
That's different for the aggregate functions min() and max(). Those get a fast plan when targeting table test1 directly using the plain PK index on (id). But not when based on the view (or the underlying join-query directly - the view is not the blocker). An index sorting NULL values in the right place has hardly any effect.
We know that id in this query can never be NULL. The column is defined NOT NULL. And the join in the view is effectively an INNER JOIN which cannot introduce NULL values for id.
We also know that the index on test.id cannot contain NULL values.
But the Postgres query planner is not an AI. (Nor does it try to be, that could get out of hands quickly.) I see two shortcomings:
min() and max() get the fast plan only when targeting the table, regardless of index sort order, an index condition is added: Index Cond: (id IS NOT NULL)
ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 gets the fast plan only with the exactly matching index sort order.
Not sure, whether that might be improved (easily).
db<>fiddle here - demonstrating all of the above
Indexes
Is there anything I could improve on the tables/indexes?
This index is completely useless:
CREATE INDEX ON "test" ("id");
The PK on test.id is implemented with a unique index on the column, that already covers everything the additional index might do for you.
There may be more, waiting for the question to clear up.
Distorted test case
The test case is too far away from actual use case to be meaningful.
In the test setup, each table has 100k rows, there is no guarantee that every value in joincol has a match on the other side, and both columns can be NULL
Your real case has 10M rows in table1 and < 100 rows in table2, every value in table1.joincol has a match in table2.joincol, both are defined NOT NULL, and table2.joincol is unique. A classical one-to-many relationship. There should be a UNIQUE constraint on table2.joincol and a FK constraint t1.joincol --> t2.joincol.
But that's currently all twisted in the question. Standing by till that's cleaned up.
This is a very good problem, and good testcase.
I tested it in postgres 9.3 perhaps 13 is can it more more fast.
I used Occam's Razor and i excluded some possiblities
View (without view is slow to)
JOIN can filter some rows (unfortunatly in your test not, but more length md5 5-6 yes)
Other basic equivalent select statements not solve yout problem (inner query or exists)
I achieved to use just index, but because the tables isn't bigger than indexes it was not the solution.
I think
CREATE INDEX on "test" ("id");
is useless, because PK!
If you change this
CREATE INDEX on "test" ("joincol");
to this
CREATE INDEX ON TEST (joincol, id);
Than the second query use just indexes.
After you run this
REINDEX table test;
REINDEX table test2;
VACUUM ANALYZE test;
VACUUM ANALYZE test2;
you can achive some performance tuning. Because you created indexes before inserts.
I think the reason is the two aim of DB.
First aim optimalize just some row. So run Nested Loop. You can force it with limit x.
Second aim optimalize whole table. Run this query fast for whole table.
In this situation postgres optimalizer didn't notice that simple MAX can run with NESTED LOOP. Or perhaps postgres cannot use limit in aggregate clause (can run on whole partial select, what is filtered with query).
And this is very expensive. But you have possiblities to write there other aggregates, like SUM, MIN, AVG stb.
Perhaps can help you the Window functions too.
This is excerpt from Tom Kyte's book.
"We’re using a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM T query (or something similar)
and we have a B*Tree index on table T. However, the optimizer is full
scanning the table, rather than counting the (much smaller) index
entries. In this case, the index is probably on a set of columns that
can contain Nulls. Since a totally Null index entry would never be
made, the count of rows in the index will not be the count of rows in
the table. Here the optimizer is doing the right thing—it would get
the wrong answer if it used the index to count rows."
As far as I know indexes come into picture when we use a WHERE clause. Why index come in the above scenario? Before countering him I wanted to know the facts.
"As far as i know indexes comes in picture when you used where clause. "
That's one use case for indexes, when we want quick access to rows identified by specific values of indexed column(s). But there are other uses.
Counting rows is one. To count the number of rows in a table Oracle actually has to count each row (because statistics may not be fresh enough), which means literally reading each block of storage and counting the rows in each block. Potentially that's a lot of reads.
However, an index on a NOT NULL column also has an entry for each row of the table. Indexes are much smaller than tables (typically only one column) so an Index block contains many more entries than a Table block. Consequently Oracle has to read far fewer Index blocks to get the count of rows than scanning the table would require. Reading fewer blocks is faster than reading more blocks.
This isn't true if the table only has indexes on nullable columns. Oracle doesn't index null values (unless the index is a composite index and at least one column is populated) so a count of the entries in an index couldn't guarantee to be the actual count of the table's rows.
Another common use case for reading indexes is to satisfy a SELECT statement where all the columns in a projection are in one index, and the index also services any WHERE conditions.
Oracle Database does not store NULLs in the B-tree index, see the documentation
Oracle Database does not index table rows in which all key columns are
null, except for bitmap indexes or when the cluster key column value
is null.
Because of this, if the index has been created on a column that may contain null values, the database cannot use this index in a query like: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM T. Even when the column does not contain any NULLs, the optimizer doesn't know this unless the column has ben marked as NOT NULL.
According to the documentation - FAST FULL INDEX SCAN
Fast Full Index Scan
A fast full index scan is a full index scan in
which the database accesses the data in the index itself without
accessing the table, and the database reads the index blocks in no
particular order.
Fast full index scans are an alternative to a full table scan when
both of the following conditions are met:
The index must contain all columns needed for the query.
A row containing all nulls must not appear in the query result set.
For this result to be guaranteed, at least one column in the index
must have either:
A NOT NULL constraint
A predicate applied to the column that prevents nulls from being
considered in the query result set
So if you know that the indexed column cannot contain NULL values, then mark this column as NOT NULL using ALTER TABLE table_name MODIFY column_name column_type NOT NULL; and the database will use that index in the query: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM T
If the colum can have nulls, and cannot be marked as NOT NULL, then use a solution from #Gordon Linoff's answer.
You can force the indexing of NULL values by including a constant in the index:
create index t_table_col on t(col, 0);
The 1 is a constant expression that is never NULL.
I'm using Postgresql (cockroachdb) and I want to select a specific row. For example, there are thousands of records and I want to select row number 999.
In this case we would use LIMIT and OFFSET, SELECT * FROM table LIMIT 1 OFFSET 998;
However, using LIMIT and OFFSET can cause performance issue according to this post. So I'm wondering if there a way to get specific row without a full table scan.
I feel like it is possible because the database seems to sort data by primary key, that when I do SELECT * FROM table; it always show a sorted result. Since it is sorted by primary key, database can use index to access a specific row, right?
If you select rows based on the primary key (e.g. SELECT * FROM table WHERE <primary key> = <value>), no scans will be needed underneath the hood. The same is also true if you define a secondary index on the table and apply a WHERE clause that filters based on the column(s) in the secondary index.
I have a table that maps a user's permissions to a given object. So, it is essentially a join table to 3 different tables. (Object, User, and Permission)
The values of each row will always be unique for all 3 columns, but not any 2.
I need to create a non-clustered index. I want to put the index on the foreign keys to the object and user, but I am wondering if I should put it on all 3 columns.
"The values of each row will always be unique for all 3 columns"
You might be interested to know that SQL Server unique constraints are implemented as indexes. So if you have (or want) a constraint backing up that unique-claim of yours, you already have an index on all 3.
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX idx_unique_perms ON UserPermissions
(
ObjectId ASC,
UserId ASC,
PermissionID ASC
)
If you make one, just remember to order your columns for high selectivity.
If you have some doubts, formulate the query(ies) you intend to execute against these tables, and run the SSMS Query Tuning Wizard. That should help you get started in the right direction.
One thing to consider is the number of rows in these three tables. If the row counts will be small, it might not even be worthwhile adding indexes. A table scan would probably be done anyway.
How can I make an ORDER BY clause with a small LIMIT (ie 20 rows at a time) return quickly, when I can't use an index to satisfy the ordering of rows?
Let's say I would like to retrieve a certain number of titles from a table 'node' (simplified below). I'm using MySQL by the way.
node_ID INT(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
node_title VARCHAR(127) NOT NULL,
node_lastupdated INT(11) NOT NULL,
node_created INT(11) NOT NULL
But I need to limit the rows returned to only those a particular user has access to. Many users have access large numbers of nodes. I have this information pre-calculated in a big lookup table (an attempt to make things easier) where the primary key covers both columns and the presence of a row means that usergroup has access to that node:
viewpermission_nodeID INT(11) NOT NULL,
viewpermission_usergroupID INT(11) NOT NULL
My query therefore contains something like
FROM
node
INNER JOIN viewpermission ON
viewpermission_nodeID=node_ID
AND viewpermission_usergroupID IN (<...usergroups of current user...>)
... and I also use a GROUP BY or a DISTINCT so that a node is only returned once even if two of the user's 'usergroups' both have access to that node.
My problem is that there seems to be no way for an ORDER BY clause which sorts results by created or last updated date to use an index, because the rows being returned depend on values in the other viewpermission table.
Therefore MySQL would need to find all rows which match the criteria, then sort them all itself. If there are one million rows for a particular user, and we want to view, say, the latest 100 or rows 100-200 when ordered by last update, the DB would need to figure out which one million rows the user can see, sort this whole result set itself, before it can return those 100 rows, right?
Is there any creative way to get around this? I've been thinking along the lines of:
Somehow add dates into the viewpermission lookup table so that I can build an index containing the dates as well as the permissions. It's a possibility I guess.
Edit: Simplified question
Perhaps I can simplify the question by rewriting it like this:
Is there any way to rewrite this query or create an index for the following such that an index can be used to do the ordering (not just to select the rows)?
SELECT nodeid
FROM lookup
WHERE
usergroup IN (2, 3)
GROUP BY
nodeid
An index on (usergroup) allows the WHERE part to be satisfied by an index, but the GROUP BY forces a temporary table and filesort on those rows. An index on (nodeid) does nothing for me, because the WHERE clause needs an index with usergroup as its first column. An index on (usergroup, nodeid) forces a temporary table and filesort because the GROUP BY is not the first column of the index that can vary.
Any solutions?
Can I answer my own question?
I believe I have found that the only way to do what I describe is for my lookup table to have rows for every possible combination of usergroups a person may want to be a member of.
To pick a simplified example, instead of doing this:
SELECT id FROM ids WHERE groups IN(1,2) ORDER BY id
If you need to use the index both to select rows and to order them, you have to abstract that IN(1,2) so that it is constant rather than a range, ie:
SELECT id FROM ids WHERE grouplist='1,2' ORDER BY id
Of course instead of using the string '1,2' you could have a foreign key there, etc. The point being that you'd have to have a row not just for each group but for each combination of multiple groups.
So, there is my answer.
Anyway, for my application, I feel that maintaining a lookup for all possible combinations of usergroups for each node is not worth it. For my purposes, I predict that most nodes are visible to most users, so I feel that it is acceptable to simply to make the GROUP BY use the index, as the filtering doesn't need it so badly.
In other words, the approach I'll take for my original query may be something like:
SELECT
<fields>
FROM
node
INNER JOIN viewpermission ON
viewpermission_nodeID=node_ID
AND viewpermission_usergroupID IN (<...usergroups of current user...>)
FORCE INDEX(node_created_and_node_ID)
GROUP BY
node_created, node_ID
GROUP BY can use an index if it starts at the left most column of the index and it is in the first non-const non-system table to be processed. The join then deals with the entire list (which is already ordered), and only those not visible to the current user (which will be a small proportion) are removed by the INNER JOIN.
Copy the value you are going to order by into to viewpermission table and add it to your index.
You could use a trigger to maintain that value from the other table.
select * from
(
select *
FROM node
INNER JOIN viewpermission
ON viewpermission_nodeID=node_ID
AND viewpermission_usergroupID IN (<...usergroups of current user...>)
) a
order by a.node_lastupdated desc
The inner query gives you the filtered subset, which I understand is substantially smaller than the whole set. Only the smaller has to be sorted.
MySQL has problems when you use GROUP BY and ORDER BY in the same query. That causes a filesort, and that's probably the biggest penalty for performance.
You can eliminate the need for a DISTINCT (or GROUP BY) by using a non-correlated subquery instead of a JOIN.
SELECT * FROM node
WHERE node_id IN (
SELECT viewpermission_nodeID
FROM viewpermission
WHERE viewpermissiong_usergroupID IN ( <...usergroups...> )
)
ORDER BY node_lastupdated DESC
LIMIT 100;
There's no need to sort or do a DISTINCT on the subquery, since IN (1, 1, 2, 3) is the same as IN (1, 3, 2).
Note that MySQL can use only one index per table in a given query, so it'll try to make the best choice between an index on node_id and an index on node_lastupdated. It can't use both, and even if you made a compound index it wouldn't help in this case.
Remember to analyze different solutions with EXPLAIN.