I have SQL table with millions of domain name. But now when I search for let's say
SELECT *
FROM tblDomainResults
WHERE domainName LIKE '%lifeis%'
It takes more than 10 minutes to get the results. I tried indexing but that didn't help.
What is the best way to store this millions of record and easily access these information in short period of time?
There are about 50 million records and 5 column so far.
Most likely, you tried a traditional index which cannot be used to optimize LIKE queries unless the pattern begins with a fixed string (e.g. 'lifeis%').
What you need for your query is a full-text index. Most DBMS support it these days.
Assuming that your 50 million row table includes duplicates (perhaps that is part of the problem), and assuming SQL Server (the syntax may change but the concept is similar on most RDBMSes), another option is to store domains in a lookup table, e.g.
CREATE TABLE dbo.Domains
(
DomainID INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
DomainName VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL
);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX dn ON dbo.Domains(DomainName);
When you load new data, check if any of the domain names are new - and insert those into the Domains table. Then in your big table, you just include the DomainID. Not only will this keep your 50 million row table much smaller, it will also make lookups like this much more efficient.
SELECT * -- please specify column names
FROM dbo.tblDomainResults AS dr
INNER JOIN dbo.Domains AS d
ON dr.DomainID = d.DomainID
WHERE d.DomainName LIKE '%lifeis%';
Of course except on the tiniest of tables, it will always help to avoid LIKE clauses with a leading wildcard.
Full-text indexing is the far-and-away best option here - how this is accomplished will depend on the DBMS you're using.
Short of that, ensuring that you have an index on the column being matched with the pattern will help performance, but by the sounds of it, you've tried this and it didn't help a great deal.
Stop using LIKE statement. You could use fulltext search, but it will require MyISAM table and isn't all that good solution.
I would recommend for you to examine available 3rd party solutions - like Lucene and Sphinx. They will be superior.
One thing you might want to consider is having a separate search engine for such lookups. For example, you can use a SOLR (lucene) server to search on and retrieve the ids of entries that match your search, then retrieve the data from the database by id. Even having to make two different calls, its very likely it will wind up being faster.
Indexes are slowed down whenever they have to go lookup ("bookmark lookup") data that the index itself doesn't contain. For instance, if your index has 2 columns, ID, and NAME, but you're selecting * (which is 5 columns total) the database has to read the index for the first two columns, then go lookup the other 3 columns in a less efficient data structure somewhere else.
In this case, your index can't be used because of the "like". This is similar to not putting any where filter on the query, it will skip the index altogether since it has to read the whole table anyway it will do just that ("table scan"). There is a threshold (i think around 35-50% where the engine normally flips over to this).
In short, it seems unlikely that you need all 50 million rows from the DB for a production application, but if you do... use a machine with more memory and try methods that keep that data in memory. Maybe a No-SQL DB would be a better option - mongoDB, couch DB, tokyo cabinet. Things like this. Good luck!
You could try breaking up the domain into chunks and then searh the chunks themselves. I did some thing like that years ago when I needed to search for words in sentences. I did not have full text searching available so I broke up the sentences into a word list and searched the words. It was really fast to find the results since the words were indexed.
Related
I have a table in my sql server 2005 database which contains about 50 million records.
I have firstName and LastName columns, and I would like to be able to allow the user to search on these columns without it taking forever.
Out of indexing these columns, is there a way to make my query work fast?
Also, I want to search similar sounded names. for example, if the user searches for Danny, I would like to return records with the name Dan, Daniel as well. It would be nice to show the user a rank in % how close the result he got to what he actually searched.
I know this is a tuff task, but I bet I'm not the first one in the world that face this issue :)
Thanks for your help.
We have databases with half a billion of records (Oracle, but should have similar performances). You can search in it within a few milli seconds if you have proper indexes. In your case, place an index on firstname and lastname. Using binary-tree index will perform good and will scale with the size of your database. Careful, LIKE clauses often break the use of the index and degrades largely the performances. I know MySQL can keep using indexes with LIKE clauses when wildcards are only at the right of the string. You would have to make similar search for SQL Server.
String similarity is indeed not simple. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:String_similarity_measures, you'll see some of the possible algorithms. Cannot say if SQL Server do implement one of them, dont know this database. Try to Google "SQL Server" + the name of the algorithms to maybe find what you need. Otherwise, you have code provided on Wiki for various languages (maybe not SQL but you should be able to adapt them for a stored procedure).
Have you tried full text indexing? I used it on free text fields in a table over 1 million records, and found it to be pretty fast. Plus you can add synonyms to it, so that Dan, Danial, and Danny all index as the same (where you get the dictionary of name equivalents is a different story). It does allow wildcard searches as well. Full text indexing can also do rank, though I found it to be less useful on names (better for documents).
use FUll TEXT SEARCH enable for this table and those columns, that will create full text index for those columns.
I have a table in SQL Server database which I want to be able to search and retrieve data from as fast as possible. I don't care about how long time it takes to insert into the table, I am only interested in the speed at which I can get data.
The problem is the table is accessed with 20 or more different types of queries. This makes it a tedious task to add an index specially designed for each query. I'm considering instead simply adding an index that includes ALL columns of the table. It's not something you would normally do in "good" database design, so I'm assuming there is some good reason why I shouldn't do it.
Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't do this?
UPDATE: I forgot to mention, I also don't care about the size of my database. It's OK that it means my database size will grow larger than it needed to
First of all, an index in SQL Server can only have at most 900 bytes in its index entry. That alone makes it impossible to have an index with all columns.
Most of all: such an index makes no sense at all. What are you trying to achieve??
Consider this: if you have an index on (LastName, FirstName, Street, City), that index will not be able to be used to speed up queries on
FirstName alone
City
Street
That index would be useful for searches on
(LastName), or
(LastName, FirstName), or
(LastName, FirstName, Street), or
(LastName, FirstName, Street, City)
but really nothing else - certainly not if you search for just Street or just City!
The order of the columns in your index makes quite a difference, and the query optimizer can't just use any column somewhere in the middle of an index for lookups.
Consider your phone book: it's order probably by LastName, FirstName, maybe Street. So does that indexing help you find all "Joe's" in your city? All people living on "Main Street" ?? No - you can lookup by LastName first - then you get more specific inside that set of data. Just having an index over everything doesn't help speed up searching for all columns at all.
If you want to be able to search by Street - you need to add a separate index on (Street) (and possibly another column or two that make sense).
If you want to be able to search by Occupation or whatever else - you need another specific index for that.
Just because your column exists in an index doesn't mean that'll speed up all searches for that column!
The main rule is: use as few indices as possible - too many indices can be even worse for a system than having no indices at all.... build your system, monitor its performance, and find those queries that cost the most - then optimize these, e.g. by adding indices.
Don't just blindly index every column just because you can - this is a guarantee for lousy system performance - any index also requires maintenance and upkeep, so the more indices you have, the more your INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE operations will suffer (get slower) since all those indices need to be updated.
You are having a fundamental misunderstanding how indexes work.
Read this explanation "how multi-column indexes work".
The next question you might have is why not creating one index per column--but that's also a dead-end if you try to reach top select performance.
You might feel that it is a tedious task, but I would say it's a required task to index carefully. Sloppy indexing strikes back, as in this example.
Note: I am strongly convinced that proper indexing pays off and I know that many people are having the very same questions you have. That's why I'm writing a the a free book about it. The links above refer the pages that might help you to answer your question. However, you might also want to read it from the beginning.
...if you add an index that contains all columns, and a query was actually able to use that index, it would scan it in the order of the primary key. Which means hitting nearly every record. Average search time would be O(n/2).. the same as hitting the actual database.
You need to read a bit lot about indexes.
It might help if you consider an index on a table to be a bit like a Dictionary in C#.
var nameIndex = new Dictionary<String, List<int>>();
That means that the name column is indexed, and will return a list of primary keys.
var nameOccupationIndex = new Dictionary<String, List<Dictionary<String, List<int>>>>();
That means that the name column + occupation columns are indexed. Now imagine the index contained 10 different columns, nested so far deep it contains every single row in your table.
This isn't exactly how it works mind you. But it should give you an idea of how indexes could work if implemented in C#. What you need to do is create indexes based on one or two keys that are queried on extensively, so that the index is more useful than scanning the entire table.
If this is a data warehouse type operation where queries are highly optimized for READ queries, and if you have 20 ways of dissecting the data, e.g.
WHERE clause involves..
Q1: status, type, customer
Q2: price, customer, band
Q3: sale_month, band, type, status
Q4: customer
etc
And you absolutely have plenty of fast storage space to burn, then by all means create an index for EVERY single column, separately. So a 20-column table will have 20 indexes, one for each individual column. I could probably say to ignore bit columns or low cardinality columns, but since we're going so far, why bother (with that admonition). They will just sit there and churn the WRITE time, but if you don't care about that part of the picture, then we're all good.
Analyze your 20 queries, and if you have hot queries (the hottest ones) that still won't go any faster, plan it using SSMS (press Ctrl-L) with one query in the query window. It will tell you what index can help that queries - just create it; create them all, fully remembering that this adds again to the write cost, backup file size, db maintenance time etc.
I think the questioner is asking
'why can't I make an index like':
create index index_name
on table_name
(
*
)
The problems with that have been addressed.
But given it sounds like they are using MS sql server.
It's useful to understand that you can include nonkey columns in an index so they the values of those columns are available for retrieval from the index, but not to be used as selection criteria :
create index index_name
on table_name
(
foreign_key
)
include (a,b,c,d) -- every column except foreign key
I created two tables with a million identical rows
I indexed table A like this
create nonclustered index index_name_A
on A
(
foreign_key -- this is a guid
)
and table B like this
create nonclustered index index_name_B
on B
(
foreign_key -- this is a guid
)
include (id,a,b,c,d) -- ( every key except foreign key)
no surprise, table A was slightly faster to insert to.
but when I and ran these this queries
select * from A where foreign_key = #guid
select * from B where foreign_key = #guid
On table A, sql server didn't even use the index, it did a table scan, and complained about a missing index including id,a,b,c,d
On table B, the query was over 50 times faster with much less io
forcing the query on A to use the index didn't make it any faster
select * from A where foreign_key = #guid
select * from A with (index(index_name_A)) where foreign_key = #guid
I'm considering instead simply adding an index that includes ALL columns of the table.
This is always a bad idea. Indexes in database is not some sort of pixie dust that works magically. You have to analyze your queries and according to what and how is being queried - append indexes.
It is not as simple as "add everything to index and have a nap"
I see only long and complicated answers here so I thought I should give the simplest answer possible.
You cannot add an entire table, or all its columns, to an index because that just duplicates the table.
In simple terms, an index is just another table with selected data ordered in the order you normally expect to query it in, and a pointer to the row on disk where the rest of the data lives.
So, a level of indirection exists. You have a partial copy of a table in an preordered manner (both on disk and in RAM, assuming the index is not fragmented), which is faster to query for the columns defined in the index only, while the rest of the columns can be fetched without having to scan the disk for them, because the index contains a reference to the correct position on disk where the rest of the data is for each row.
1) size, an index essentially builds a copy of the data in that column some easily searchable structure, like a binary tree (I don't know SQL Server specifcs).
2) You mentioned speed, index structures are slower to add to.
That index would just be identical to your table (possibly sorted in another order).
It won't speed up your queries.
I have a DB having text file attributes and text file primary key IDs and
indexed around 1 million text files along with their IDs (primary keys in DB).
Now, I am searching at two levels.
First is straight forward DB search, where i get primary keys as result (roughly 2 or 3 million IDs)
Then i make a Boolean query for instance as following
+Text:"test*" +(pkID:1 pkID:4 pkID:100 pkID:115 pkID:1041 .... )
and search it in my Index file.
The problem is that such query (having 2 million clauses) takes toooooo much time to give result and consumes reallly too much memory....
Is there any optimization solution for this problem ?
Assuming you can reuse the dbid part of your queries:
Split the query into two parts: one part (the text query) will become the query and the other part (the pkID query) will become the filter
Make both parts into queries
Convert the pkid query to a filter (by using QueryWrapperFilter)
Convert the filter into a cached filter (using CachingWrapperFilter)
Hang onto the filter, perhaps via some kind of dictionary
Next time you do a search, use the overload that allows you to use a query and filter
As long as the pkid search can be reused, you should quite a large improvement. As long as you don't optimise your index, the effect of caching should even work through commit points (I understand the bit sets are calculated on a per-segment basis).
HTH
p.s.
I think it would be remiss of me not to note that I think you're putting your index through all sorts of abuse by using it like this!
The best optimization is NOT to use the query with 2 million clauses. Any Lucene query with 2 million clauses will run slowly no matter how you optimize it.
In your particular case, I think it will be much more practical to search your index first with +Text:"test*" query and then limit the results by running a DB query on Lucene hits.
Is there going to be much benefit in indexing a boolean field in a database table?
Given a common situation, like "soft-delete" records which are flagged as inactive, and hence most queries include WHERE deleted = 0, would it help to have that field indexed on its own, or should it be combined with the other commonly-searched fields in a different index?
No.
You index fields that are searched upon and have high selectivity/cardinality. A boolean field's cardinality is obliterated in nearly any table. If anything it will make your writes slower (by an oh so tiny amount).
Maybe you would make it the first field in the clustered index if every query took into account soft deletes?
What is about a deleted_at DATETIME column? There are two benefits.
If you need an unique column like name, you can create and soft-delete a record with the same name multiple times (if you use an unique index on the columns deleted_at AND name)
You can search for recently deleted records.
You query could look like this:
SELECT * FROM xyz WHERE deleted_at IS NULL
I think it would help, especially in covering indices.
How much/little is of course dependent on your data and queries.
You can have theories of all sorts about indices but final answers are given by the database engine in a database with real data. And often you are surprised by the answer (or maybe my theories are too bad ;)
Examine the query plan of your queries and determine if the queries can be improved, or if the indices can be improved.
It's quite simple to alter indices and see what difference it makes
I think it would help if you were using a view (where deleted = 0) and you are regularly querying from this view.
i think if your boolean field is such that you would be referring to them in many cases, it would make sense to have a separate table, example DeletedPages, or SpecialPages, which will have many boolean type fields, like is_deleted, is_hidden, is_really_deleted, requires_higher_user etc, and then you would take joins to get them.
Typically the size of this table would be smaller and you would get some advantage by taking joins, especially as far as code readability and maintainability is concerned. And for this type of query:
select all pages where is_deleted = 1
It would be faster to have it implemented like this:
select all pages where pages
inner join DeletedPages on page.id=deleted_pages.page_id
I think i read it somewhere about mysql databases that you need a field to at least have cardinality of 3 to make indexing work on that field, but please confirm this.
If you are using database that supports bitmap indexes (such as Oracle), then such an index on a boolean column will much more useful than without.
We have a query that runs off a fairly large table that unfortunately needs to use LIKE '%ABC%' on a couple varchar fields so the user can search on partial names, etc. SQL Server 2005
Would adding an index on these varchar fields help any in terms of select query performance when using LIKE or does it basically ignore the indexes and do a full scan in those cases?
Any other possible ways to improve performance when using LIKE?
Only if you add full-text searching to those columns, and use the full-text query capabilities of SQL Server.
Otherwise, no, an index will not help.
You can potentially see performance improvements by adding index(es), it depends a lot on the specifics :)
How much of the total size of the row are your predicated columns? How many rows do you expect to match? Do you need to return all rows that match the predicate, or just top 1 or top n rows?
If you are searching for values with high selectivity/uniqueness (so few rows to return), and the predicated columns are a smallish portion of the entire row size, an index could be quite useful. It will still be a scan, but your index will fit more rows per page than the source table.
Here is an example where the total row size is much greater than the column size to search across:
create table t1 (v1 varchar(100), b1 varbinary(8000))
go
--add 10k rows of filler
insert t1 values ('abc123def', cast(replicate('a', 8000) as varbinary(8000)))
go 10000
--add 1 row to find
insert t1 values ('abc456def', cast(replicate('a', 8000) as varbinary(8000)))
go
set statistics io on
go
select * from t1 where v1 like '%456%'
--shows 10001 logical reads
--create index that only contains the column(s) to search across
create index t1i1 on t1(v1)
go
select * from t1 where v1 like '%456%'
--or can force to
--shows 37 logical reads
If you look at the actual execution plan you can see the engine scanned the index and did a bookmark lookup on the matching row. Or you can tell the optimizer directly to use the index, if it hadn't decide to use this plan on its own:
select * from t1 with (index(t1i1)) where v1 like '%456%'
If you have a bunch of columns to search across only a few that are highly selective, you could create multiple indexes and use a reduction approach. E.g. first determine a set of IDs (or whatever your PK is) from your highly selective index, then search your less selective columns with a filter against that small set of PKs.
If you always need to return a large set of rows you would almost certainly be better off with a table scan.
So the possible optimizations depend a lot on the specifics of your table definition and the selectivity of your data.
HTH!
-Adrian
The only other way (other than using fulltext indexing) you could improve performance is to use "LIKE ABC%" - don't add the wildcard on both ends of your search term - in that case, an index could work.
If your requirements are such that you have to have wildcards on both ends of your search term, you're out of luck...
Marc
Like '%ABC%' will always perform a full table scan. There is no way around that.
You do have a couple of alternative approaches. Firstly full text searching, it's really designed for this sort of problem so I'd look at that first.
Alternatively in some circumstances it might be appropriate to denormalize the data and pre-process the target fields into appropriate tokens, then add these possible search terms into a separate one to many search table. For example, if my data always consisted of a field containing the pattern 'AAA/BBB/CCC' and my users were searching on BBB then I'd tokenize that out at insert/update (and remove on delete). This would also be one of those cases where using triggers, rather than application code, would be much preferred.
I must emphasis that this is not really an optimal technique and should only be used if the data is a good match for the approach and for some reason you do not want to use full text search (and the database performance on the like scan really is unacceptable). It's also likely to produce maintenance headaches further down the line.
create statistics on that column. sql srever 2005 has optimized the in string search so you might benfit from that.