I have a DISTINCT clause to remove the duplicate values.
What is the performance if there are multiple expressions?
For example:
SELECT DISTINCT city, state
FROM customers
WHERE total_orders > 10
ORDER BY city;
Will this perform a full table scan?
The DBMS performs a full table scan when it thinks it appropriate.
In your example, when the DBMS thinks that with total_orders > 10 it will only get very few rows and there is an index on that column, it will use that index to access the table records. In a second step it will apply DISTINCT and then sort (or sort on-the-fly when making rows distinct). If the DBMS thinks however it will get too many records with total_orders > 10 it may decide for a full table scan. (And then apply DISTINCT and ORDER BY). So whatever the situation, DISTINCT doesn't change anything.
In case you have an index on total_orders + City + state, the DBMS may decide not to access the table at all, because all data exists in the index and even in the order needed. The DBMS would do the same without DISTINCT, however.
In case you have an index on state + total_orders + City (i.e. wrong order; the WHERE clause can not be directly applied), the DBMS may still decide to read the index only, but it is less likely. And again: the DBMS would do the same without DISTINCT.
And if you have no index, the DBMS must do a full table scan of course, because there is no index to circumvent it. Well, I guess that was needless to say :-)
Will this perform a full table scan?
Check the EXPLAIN PLAN.
EXPLAIN PLAN FOR your_query;
SELECT * FROM TABLE(DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY);
It is up to the optimizer to decide the optimal plan for execution of the query. Since you do not have an index on the column used in the filter predicate, it has no other option than a FTS(Full Table Scan).
Related
SQL Fiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/23cf8
In this query, when I have an In clause on an Id, and then also select other columns, the In is evaluated first, and then the Details column and other columns are pulled in via a RID Lookup:
--In production and in SQL Fiddle, Details is grabbed via a RID Lookup after the In clause is evaluated
SELECT [Id]
,[ForeignId]
,Details
--Generate a numbering(starting at 1)
--,Row_Number() Over(Partition By ForeignId Order By Id Desc) as ContactNumber --Desc because older posts should be numbered last
FROM SupportContacts
Where foreignId In (1,2,3,5)
With this query, the Details are being pulled in via a Table Scan.
With NumberedContacts AS
(
SELECT [Id]
,[ForeignId]
--Generate a numbering(starting at 1)
,Row_Number() Over(Partition By ForeignId Order By Id Desc) as ContactNumber --Desc because older posts should be numbered last
FROM SupportContacts
Where ForeignId In (1,2,3,5)
)
Select nc.[Id]
,nc.[ForeignId]
,sc.[Details]
From NumberedContacts nc
Inner Join SupportContacts sc on nc.Id = sc.Id
Where nc.ContactNumber <= 2 --Only grab the last 2 contacts per ForeignId
;
In SqlFiddle, the second query actually gets a RID Lookup, whereas in production with a million records it produces a Table Scan (the IN clause eliminates 99% of the rows)
Otherwise the query plan shown in SQL Fiddle is identical, the only difference being that for the second query the RID Lookup in SQL Fiddle, is a Table Scan in production :(
I would like to understand possibilities that would cause this behavior? What kinds of things would you look at to help determine the cause of it using a table scan here?
How can I influence it to use a RID Lookup there?
From looking at operation costs in the actual execution plan, I believe I can get the second query very close in performance to the first query if I can get it to use a RID Lookup. If I don't select the Detail column, then the performance of both queries is very close in production. It is only after adding other columns like Detail that performance degrades significantly for the second query. When I put it in SQL Fiddle and saw that the execution plan used an RID Lookup, I was surprised but slightly confused...
It doesn't have a clustered index because in testing with different clustered indexes, there was slightly worse performance for this and other queries. That was before I began adding other columns like Details though, and I can experiment with that more, but would like to have a understanding of what is going on now before I start shooting in the dark with random indexes.
What if you would change your main index to include the Details column?
If you use:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_SupportContacts_ForeignIdAsc_IdDesc]
ON SupportContacts ([ForeignId] ASC, [Id] DESC)
INCLUDE (Details);
then neither a RID lookup nor a table scan would be needed, since your query could be satisfied from just the index itself....
The differences in the query plans will be dependent on the types of indexes that exist and the statistics of the data for those tables in the different environments.
The optimiser uses the statistics (histograms of data frequency, mostly) and the available indexes to decide which execution plan is going to be the quickest.
So, for example, you have noticed that the performance degrades when the 'Details' column is included. This is an almost sure sign that either the 'Details' column is not part of an index, or if it is part of an index, the data in that column is mostly unique such that the index accesses would be equivalent (or almost equivalent) to a table scan.
Often when this situation arises, the optimiser will choose a table scan over the index access, as it can take advantage of things like block reads to access the table records faster than perhaps a fragmented read of an index.
To influence the path that will be chose by the optimiser, you would need to look at possible indexes that could be added/modified to make an index access more efficient, but this should be done with care as it can adversely affect other queries as well as possibly degrading insert performance.
The other important activity you can do to help the optimiser is to make sure the table statistics are kept up to date and refreshed at a frequency that is appropriate to the rate of change of the frequency distribution in the table data
If it's true that 99% of the rows would be omitted if it performed the query using the relevant index + RID then the likeliest problem in your production environment is that your statistics are out of date and the optimiser doesn't realise that ForeignID in (1,2,3,5) would limit the result set to 1% of the total data.
Here's a good link for discovering more about statistics from Pinal Dave: http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2010/01/25/sql-server-find-statistics-update-date-update-statistics/
As for forcing the optimiser to follow the correct path WITHOUT updating the statistics, you could use a table hint - if you know the index that your plan should be using which contains the ID and ForeignID columns then stick that in your query as a hint and force SQL optimiser to use the index:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187373.aspx
FYI, if you want the best performance from your second query, use this index and avoid the headache you're experiencing altogether:
create index ix1 on SupportContacts(ForeignID, Id DESC) include (Details);
I am running following query.
SELECT Table_1.Field_1,
Table_1.Field_2,
SUM(Table_1.Field_5) BALANCE_AMOUNT
FROM Table_1, Table_2
WHERE Table_1.Field_3 NOT IN (1, 3)
AND Table_2.Field_2 <> 2
AND Table_2.Field_3 = 'Y'
AND Table_1.Field_1 = Table_2.Field_1
AND Table_1.Field_4 = '31-oct-2011'
GROUP BY Table_1.Field_1, Table_1.Field_2;
I have created index for columns (Field_1,Field_2,Field_3,Field_4) of Table_1 but the index is not getting used.
If I remove the SUM(Table_1.Field_5) from select clause then index is getting used.
I am confused if optimizer is not using this index or its because of SUM() function I have used in query.
Please share your explaination on the same.
When you remove the SUM you also remove field_5 from the query. All the data needed to answer the query can then be found in the index, which may be quicker than scanning the table. If you added field_5 to the index the query with SUM might use the index.
If your query is returning the large percentage of table's rows, Oracle may decide that doing a full table scan is cheaper than "hopping" between the index and the table's heap (to get the values in Table_1.Field_5).
Try adding Table_1.Field_5 to the index (thus covering the whole query with the index) and see if this helps.
See the Index-Only Scan: Avoiding Table Access at Use The Index Luke for conceptual explanation of what is going on.
As you mentioned, the presence of the summation function results in the the Index being overlooked.
There are function based indexes:
A function-based index includes columns that are either transformed by a function, such as the UPPER function, or included in an expression, such as col1 + col2.
Defining a function-based index on the transformed column or expression allows that data to be returned using the index when that function or expression is used in a WHERE clause or an ORDER BY clause. Therefore, a function-based index can be beneficial when frequently-executed SQL statements include transformed columns, or columns in expressions, in a WHERE or ORDER BY clause.
However, as with all, function based indexes have their restrictions:
Expressions in a function-based index cannot contain any aggregate functions. The expressions must reference only columns in a row in the table.
Though I see some good answers here couple of important points are being missed -
SELECT Table_1.Field_1,
Table_1.Field_2,
SUM(Table_1.Field_5) BALANCE_AMOUNT
FROM Table_1, Table_2
WHERE Table_1.Field_3 NOT IN (1, 3)
AND Table_2.Field_2 <> 2
AND Table_2.Field_3 = 'Y'
AND Table_1.Field_1 = Table_2.Field_1
AND Table_1.Field_4 = '31-oct-2011'
GROUP BY Table_1.Field_1, Table_1.Field_2;
Saying that having SUM(Table_1.Field_5) in select clause causes index not to be used in not correct. Your index on (Field_1,Field_2,Field_3,Field_4) can still be used. But there are problems with your index and sql query.
Since your index is only on (Field_1,Field_2,Field_3,Field_4) even if your index gets used DB will have to access the actual table row to fetch Field_5 for applying filter. Now it completely depends on the execution plan charted out of sql optimizer which one is cost effective. If SQL optimizer figures out that full table scan has less cost than using index it will ignore the index. Saying so I will now tell you probable problems with your index -
As others have states you could simply add Field_5 to the index so that there is no need for separate table access.
Your order of index matters very much for performance. For eg. in your case if you give order as (Field_4,Field_1,Field_2,Field_3) then it will be quicker since you have equality on Field_4 -Table_1.Field_4 = '31-oct-2011'. Think of it this was -
Table_1.Field_4 = '31-oct-2011' will give you less options to choose final result from then Table_1.Field_3 NOT IN (1, 3). Things might change since you are doing a join. It's always best to see the execution plan and design your index/sql accordingly.
How can I avoid a full table scan on mysql?
In general, by making sure you have a usable index on fields that appear in WHERE, JOIN and ORDER BY clauses.
Index your data.
Write queries that use those indexes.
Anything more than that we need specifics.
Also note that sometimes you just can not rid of a full table scan, i.e. When you need all the rows from your table... or when the cost of scanning the index is gt the cost of scanning the full table.
Use a LIMIT clause when you know how many rows you are expecting to return, for example if you are looking for a record with a known ID field that is unique, limit your select to 1, that way mysql will stop searching after it finds the first record. The same goes for updates and deletes.
SELECT * FROM `yourTable` WHERE `idField` = 123 LIMIT 1
Do you need to create an index for fields of group by fields in an Oracle database?
For example:
select *
from some_table
where field_one is not null and field_two = ?
group by field_three, field_four, field_five
I was testing the indexes I created for the above and the only relevant index for this query is an index created for field_two. Other single-field or composite indexes created on any of the other fields will not be used for the above query. Does this sound correct?
It could be correct, but that would depend on how much data you have. Typically I would create an index for the columns I was using in a GROUP BY, but in your case the optimizer may have decided that after using the field_two index that there wouldn't be enough data returned to justify using the other index for the GROUP BY.
No, this can be incorrect.
If you have a large table, Oracle can prefer deriving the fields from the indexes rather than from the table, even there is no single index that covers all values.
In the latest article in my blog:
NOT IN vs. NOT EXISTS vs. LEFT JOIN / IS NULL: Oracle
, there is a query in which Oracle does not use full table scan but rather joins two indexes to get the column values:
SELECT l.id, l.value
FROM t_left l
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT value
FROM t_right r
WHERE r.value = l.value
)
The plan is:
SELECT STATEMENT
HASH JOIN ANTI
VIEW , 20090917_anti.index$_join$_001
HASH JOIN
INDEX FAST FULL SCAN, 20090917_anti.PK_LEFT_ID
INDEX FAST FULL SCAN, 20090917_anti.IX_LEFT_VALUE
INDEX FAST FULL SCAN, 20090917_anti.IX_RIGHT_VALUE
As you can see, there is no TABLE SCAN on t_left here.
Instead, Oracle takes the indexes on id and value, joins them on rowid and gets the (id, value) pairs from the join result.
Now, to your query:
SELECT *
FROM some_table
WHERE field_one is not null and field_two = ?
GROUP BY
field_three, field_four, field_five
First, it will not compile, since you are selecting * from a table with a GROUP BY clause.
You need to replace * with expressions based on the grouping columns and aggregates of the non-grouping columns.
You will most probably benefit from the following index:
CREATE INDEX ix_sometable_23451 ON some_table (field_two, field_three, field_four, field_five, field_one)
, since it will contain everything for both filtering on field_two, sorting on field_three, field_four, field_five (useful for GROUP BY) and making sure that field_one is NOT NULL.
Do you need to create an index for fields of group by fields in an Oracle database?
No. You don't need to, in the sense that a query will run irrespective of whether any indexes exist or not. Indexes are provided to improve query performance.
It can, however, help; but I'd hesitate to add an index just to help one query, without thinking about the possible impact of the new index on the database.
...the only relevant index for this query is an index created for field_two. Other single-field or composite indexes created on any of the other fields will not be used for the above query. Does this sound correct?
Not always. Often a GROUP BY will require Oracle to perform a sort (but not always); and you can eliminate the sort operation by providing a suitable index on the column(s) to be sorted.
Whether you actually need to worry about the GROUP BY performance, however, is an important question for you to think about.
Suppose I want to query a table based on multiple WHERE clauses.
Would either of these statements be faster than the other?
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE (line_type='section_intro' OR line_type='question')
AND (line_order BETWEEN 0 AND 12)
ORDER BY line_order";
...or:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE (line_order BETWEEN 0 AND 12)
AND (line_type='section_intro' OR line_type='question')
ORDER BY line_order;
I guess what it would come down to is whether the first one would select more than 12 records, and then pare down from there.
No, the order does not matter. Query optimizer is going to estimate all conditions separately and decide on the best order based on what indexes are applicable / size of targeted selection / etc...
It depends on your indexes. If you have a multi- index on (line_type, line_order), the first query is faster. If you have an index on (line_order, line_type), the second one is faster. This is because for multi-column primary keys, MySQL can only do the comparisons in order. Otherwise, there is no difference.