Having years of experience as a DBA, I do believe I know the answer to the question, but I figured it never hurts to check my bases.
Using SQL Server, assuming I have a table which has an index on column A and column B, and a second index on columns A, B, and C, would it be safe to drop the first index, as the second index basically would satisfy queries that would benefit from the first index?
It depends, but the answer is often 'Yes, you could drop the index on (A,B)'.
The counter-case (where you would not drop the index on (A,B)) is when the index on (A,B) is a unique index that is enforcing a constraint; then you do not want to drop the index on (A,B). The index on (A,B,C) could also be unique, but the uniqueness is redundant because the (A,B) combination is unique because of the other index.
But in the absence of such unusual cases (for example, if both (A,B) and (A,B,C) allow duplicate entries), then the (A,B) index is logically redundant. However, if the column C is 'wide' (a CHAR(100) column perhaps), whereas A and B are small (say INTEGER), then the (A,B) index is more efficient than the (A,B,C) index because you can get more information read per page of the (A,B) index. So, even though (A,B) is redundant, it may be worth keeping. You also need to consider the volatility of the table; if the table seldom changes, the extra indexes don't matter much; if the table changes a lot, extra indexes slow up modifications to the table. Whether that's significant is difficult to guess; you probably need to do the performance measurements.
The first index covers queries that look up on A , A,B and the second index can be used to cover queries that look up on A , A,B or A,B,C which is clearly a superset of the first case.
If C is very wide however the index on A,B may still be useful as it can satisfy certain queries with fewer reads.
e.g. if C was a char(800) column the following query may benefit significantly from having the narrower index available.
SELECT a,b
FROM YourTable
ORDER BY a,b
Yes, this is a common optimization. Any query that would benefit from the index on A,B can also benefit just as well from the index on A,B,C.
In the MySQL community, there's even a tool to search your whole schema for redundant indexes: http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/pt-duplicate-key-checker.html
The possible exception case would be if the index on A,B were more compact and used much more frequently, and you wanted to control which index was kept loaded in memory.
Much of what I was thinking was written by Jonathan in a previous answer. Uniqueness, faster work, and one other thing I think he missed.
If the first index is made A desc, B asc and second A asc, B asc, C asc, then deleting the first index isn't really a way to go, because the second one isn't a superset of the first one, and your query cannot benefit from the second index if ordering is as written in the first one.
In some cases like when you use the first index, you can order by A desc, B asc (of course) and A asc, B desc, but you can also make a query that will use any part of that index, like Order by A desc.
But a query like order by A asc, B asc, will not be 'covered' by the first index.
So I would add up, you can usually delete the first index, but that depends on your table configuration and your query (and, of course, indexes).
I typically would find this "almost" similar index in table that contains historical data. If column C is a date or integer column, be careful. It is most likely used to satisfy the MAX function as in WHERE tblA.C = MAX(tblB.C), which skips the table altogether and utilize an index only access path.
Related
Let's say that we have the following SQL:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM example_table
WHERE a = '12345' AND (b, c) <= ('2020-08-15'::date, '2020-08-15 00:40:33'::timestamp)
LIMIT 20
Can PostgreSQL efficiently use a B-Tree index defined on (a, b, c) to answer this query?
To elaborate a little bit on the use-case. This SQL query is part of my cursor-pagination implementation. Since I'm using a UUID as a primary key, I have to resort to using the date/timestamp columns for the cursor, which more closely fits my actual needs anyway. I'm new to PostgreSQL and this row-wise comparison feature, so I'm unsure how I can use an index to speed it up. In my testing using "explain analyze" I wasn't able to make the query use the index, but I assume this may be due to the fact that a table scan is more efficient given that there aren't many rows in the table.
Well, it should use the index. But only the first two columns. It can scan the rows with value of a you have specified. If the index is up-to-date with the table, then Postgres can pull the values of b and c from the index. That will allow it to scan a range of values for b.
Imagine I have a table with the following columns:
Column: A (numer(10)) (PK)
Column: B (numer(10))
Column: C (numer(10))
CREATE TABLE schema_name.table_name (
column_a number(10) primary_key,
column_b number(10) ,
column_c number(10)
);
Column A is my PK.
Imagine my application now has a flow that queries by B and C. Something like:
SELECT * FROM SCHEMA.TABLE WHERE B=30 AND C=99
If I create an index only using the Column B, this will already improve my query right?
The strategy behind this query would benefit from the index on column B?
Q1 - If so, why should I create an index with those two columns?
Q2 - If I decided to create an index with B and C, If I query selecting only B, would this one be affected by the index?
The simple answers to your questions.
For this query:
SELECT *
FROM SCHEMA.TABLE
WHERE B = 30 AND C = 99;
The optimal index either (B, C) or (C, B). The order does matter because the two comparisons are =.
An index on either column can be used, but all the matching values will need to be scanned to compare to the second value.
If you have an index on (B, C), then this can be used for a query on WHERE B = 30. Oracle also implements a skip-scan optimization, so it is possible that the index could also be used for WHERE C = 99 -- but it probably would not be.
I think the documentation for MySQL has a good introduction to multi-column indexes. It doesn't cover the skip-scan but is otherwise quite applicable to Oracle.
Short answer: always check the real performance, not theoretical. It means, that my answer requires verification at real database.
Inside SQL (Oracle, Postgre, MsSql, etc.) the Primary Key is used for at least two purposes:
Ordering of rows (e.g. if PK is incremented only then all values will be appended)
Link to row. It means that if you have any extra index, it will contain whole PK to have ability to jump from additional index to other rows.
If I create an index only using the Column B, this will already improve my query right?
The strategy behind this query would benefit from the index on column B?
It depends. If your table is too small, Oracle can do just full scan of it. For large table Oracle can (and will do in common scenario) use index for column B and next do range scan. In this case Oracle check all values with B=30. Therefore, if you can only one row with B=30 then you can achieve good performance. If you have millions of such rows, Oracle will need to do million of reads. Oracle can get this information via statistic.
Q1 - If so, why should I create an index with those two columns?
It is needed to direct access to row. In this case Oracle requires just few jumps to find your row. Moreover, you can apply unique modifier to help Oracle. Then it will know, that not more than single row will be returned.
However if your table has other columns, real execution plan will include access to PK (to retrieve other rows).
If I decided to create an index with B and C, If I query selecting only B, would this one be affected by the index?
Yes. Please check the details here. If index have several columns, than Oracle will sort them according to column ordering. E.g. if you create index with columns B, C then Oracle will able to use it to retrieve values like "B=30", e.g. when you restricted only B.
Well, it all depends.
If that table is tiny, you won't see any benefit regardless any indexes you might create - it is just too small and Oracle returns data immediately.
If the table is huge, then it depends on column's selectivity. There's no guarantee that Oracle will ever use that index. If optimizer decides (upon information it has - don't forget to regularly collect statistics!) that the index should not be used, then you created it in vain (though, you can choose to use a hint, but - unless you know what you're doing, don't do it).
How will you know what's going on? See the explain plan.
But, generally speaking, yes - indexes help.
Q1 - If so, why should I create an index with those two columns?
Which "two columns"? A? If it is a primary key column, Oracle automatically creates an index, you don't have to do that.
Q2 - If I decided to create an index with B and C, If I query selecting only B, would this one be affected by the index?
If you are talking about a composite index (containing both B and C columns, respectively), and if query uses B column, then yes - index will (OK, might be used). But, if query uses only column C, then this index will be completely useless.
In spite of this question being answered and one answer being accepted already, I'll just throw in some more information :-)
An index is an offer to the DBMS that it can use to access data quicker in some situations. Whether it actually uses the index is a decision made by the DBMS.
Oracle has a built-in optimizer that looks at the query and tries to find the best execution plan to get the results you are after.
Let's say that 90% of all rows have B = 30 AND C = 99. Why then should Oracle laboriously walk through the index only to have to access almost every row in the table at last? So, even with an index on both columns, Oracle may decide not to use the index at all and even perform the query faster because of the decision against the index.
Now to the questions:
If I create an index only using the Column B, this will already improve my query right?
It may. If Oracle thinks that B = 30 reduces the rows it will have to read from the table imensely, it will.
If so, why should I create an index with those two columns?
If the combination of B = 30 AND C = 99 limits the rows to read from the table further, it's a good idea to use this index instead.
If I decided to create an index with B and C, If I query selecting only B, would this one be affected by the index?
If the index is on (B, C), i.e. B first, then Oracle may find it useful, yes. In the extreme case that there are only the two columns in the table, that would even be a covering index (i.e. containing all columns accessed in the query) and the DBMS wouldn't have to read any table row, as all the information is already in the index itself. If the index is (C, B), i.e. C first, it is quite unlikely that the index would be used. In some edge-case situations, Oracle might do so, though.
This question is closely related to Enforcing index scan for multicolumn comparison
The solution there is perfect, but seems to works only if all index columns have same ordering. This question is different because column b is desc here, and this fact stops from using row-syntax to solve the same problem. This is why I'm looking for another solution.
Suppose index is built for 3 columns (a asc, b DESC, c asc), I want Postgres to:
find key [a=10, b=20, c=30] in that B-tree,
scan next 10 entries and return them.
If the index has only one column the solution is obvious:
select * from table1 where a >= 10 order by a limit 10
But if there are more columns the solution becomes much more complex. For 3 columns:
select * from table1
where a > 10 or (a = 10 and (b < 20 or b = 20 and c <= 30))
order by a, b DESC, c
limit 10;
How can I tell Postgres that I want this operation?
And can I be sure that even for those complex queries for 2+ columns the optimizer will always understand that he should perform range-scan? Why?
PostgreSQL implements tuples very thoroughly, (unlike half implementations found in Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, etc.). You can write your condition using "tuples inequality", as in:
select *
from table1
where (a, -b, c) >= (10, -20, 30)
order by a, -b, c
limit 10
Please note that since the second column is in descending order, you must "invert" its value during the comparison. That's why it's expressed as -b and also, -20. This can be tricky for non-numeric columns such as dates, varchars, LOBs, etc.
Finally, the use of an index is still possible with the -b column value if you create an ad-hoc index, such as:
create index ix1 on table1 (a, (-b), c);
However, you can never force PostgreSQL to use an index. SQL is a declarative language, not an imperative one. You can entice it to do it by keeping table stats up to date, and also by selecting a small number of rows. If your LIMIT is too big, PostgreSQL may be inclined to use a full table scan instead.
Strictly speaking, your index on (a ASC, b DESC, c ASC) can still be used, but only based on the leading expression a. See:
Is a composite index also good for queries on the first field?
Working of indexes in PostgreSQL
It's usefulness is limited and Postgres will only use it if the predicate on a alone is selective enough (less than roughly 5% of all rows have a >= 10). (Or possibly to profit from an index-only scans where possible.) But all index tuples qualifying on only a have to be read and you will see a FILTER step in the query plan to discard non-qualifying rows - both adding additional cost. An index on just (a) typically does a better job as it's smaller and cheaper to maintain.
I have tried and failed in the past to make full use of an index with non-uniform sort order (ASC | DESC) like you display for ROW value comparison. I am pretty certain it's not possible. Think of it: Postgres compares whole row values, which can either be greater or smaller, but not both at the same time.
There are workarounds for datatypes with a defined negator (like - for numeric data types). See the solution provided by "The Impaler"! The trick is to invert values and wrap it in an expression index to get uniform sort order for all index expressions after all - which is currently the only way to tap into the full potential of row comparison. Be sure to make both WHERE conditions and ORDER BY match the special index.
I have a question:
Definition of non-clustered index says that included columns in index are not counted by database engine in sense of index size or maximum number of columns.
So what is really the way they work?
How they help to SQL Server when they are not acting in index size?
The important thing to note is that included columns are not counted by the database engine when determining the size or number of columns in the index key (the value used to actually look up data in the index structure). They still add to the size of the index itself.
Index keys are only allowed to be 900 bytes in size across all columns that make up the key (there can be only 16 columns that make up the index key).
Adding included columns doesn't count towards the 900 byte/16 column limits, but can make the index more useful by covering more queries.
Good explanations from the other people here.
For me, included index columns are rather easy to remember and use with this simple rule:
Filters, ie. WHERE x = y etc.., are your keys, the decision whether to use the index or not is based on those. SELECT a, b, x are the values you're actually returning, those are the things you want to include in your index so SQL Server doesn't have to go searching through the clustered index / heap to find them.
Example:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX TABLEX_A_IDX ON TABLEX (A) INCLUDE (B, C)
SELECT A, B, C -- KEY + INCLUDED columns
FROM TABLEX WHERE A = 'ASD' -- KEY columns
Granted, this wasn't exactly your question, but it might help just the same.
when I create an index on a db2, for example with the following code:
CREATE INDEX T_IDX ON T(
A,
B)
is it a composite index?
if not: how can I then create a composite index?
if yes: in order to have two different index should I create them separately as:
CREATE INDEX T1_IDX ON T(A)
CREATE INDEX T2_IDX ON T(A)
EDIT: this discussion is not going in the direction I expect (but in a better one :)) I actually asked how, and not why to create separate indexes, I planed to do that in a different question, but since you anticipated me:
suppose I have a table T(A,B,C) and a search function search() that select from the table using any of the following method
WHERE A = x
WHERE B = x
WHERE C = x
WHERE A = x AND B=y (and so on AC, CB, ABC)
if I create a compose index ABC, is it going to working for example when I select on just C?
the table is quite big, and the insert\update not so frequent
Yep multiple fields on create index = composite by definition: Specify two or more column names to create a composite index.
Understanding when to use composite indexes appears to be your last question...
If all columns selected by a query are in a composite index, then the dbengine can return these values from the index without accessing the table. so you have faster seek time.
However if one or the other are used in queries, then creating individual indexes will serve you best. It depends on the types of queries executed and what values they contain/filter/join.
If you sometimes have one, the other, or both, then creating all 3 indexes is a possibility as well. But keep in mind each additional index increases the amount of time it takes to insert, update or delete, so on highly maintained tables, more indexes are generally bad since the overhead to maintain the indexes effects performance.
The index on A, B is a composite index, and can be used to seek on just A or a seek on A with B or for a general scan, of course.
There is usually not much of a point in having an index on A, B and an index on just A, since a partial search on A, B can be used if you only have A. That wider index will be a little less efficient, however, so if the A lookup is extremely frequent and the write requirements mean that it is acceptable to update the extra index, it could be justifiable.
Having an index on B may be necessary, since the A, B index is not very suitable for searches based on B only.
First Answer: YES
CREATE INDEX JOB_BY_DPT
ON EMPLOYEE (WORKDEPT, JOB)
Second Answer:
It depends on your query; if most of the time your query referrence a single column in where clause like select * from T where A = 'something' then a single index would be what you want but if both column A and B get referrenced then you should go for creating a composite one.
For further referrence please check
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0000919.htm