Why does select statement influence query execution and performance in MySQL? - sql

I'm encountering a strange behavior of MySQL.
Query execution (i.e. the usage of indexes as shown by explain [QUERY]) and time needed for execution are dependent on the elements of the where clause.
Here is a query where the problem occurs:
select distinct
e1.idx, el1.idx, r1.fk_cat, r2.fk_cat
from ent e1, ent_leng el1, rel_c r1, _tax_c t1, rel_c r2, _tax_c t2
where el1.fk_ent=e1.idx
and r1.fk_ent=e1.idx and ((r1.fk_cat=43) or (r1.fk_cat=t1.fk_cat1 and t1.fk_cat2=43))
and r2.fk_ent=e1.idx and ((r2.fk_cat=10) or (r2.fk_cat=t2.fk_cat1 and t2.fk_cat2=10))
The corresponding explain output is:
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-------------------------+---------+---------+---------------+-------+------------------------------------
| 1 | SIMPLE | el1 | index | fk_ent | fk_ent | 4 | NULL | 15002 | Using index; Using temporary
| 1 | SIMPLE | e1 | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | DB.el1.fk_ent | 1 | Using index
| 1 | SIMPLE | r1 | ref | fk_ent,fk_cat,fks | fks | 4 | DB.e1.idx | 1 | Using where; Using index
| 1 | SIMPLE | r2 | ref | fk_ent,fk_cat,fks | fks | 4 | DB.el1.fk_ent | 1 | Using index
| 1 | SIMPLE | t1 | index | fk_cat1,fk_cat2,fk_cats | fk_cats | 8 | NULL | 69 | Using where; Using index; Distinct;
| | | | | | | | | | Using join buffer
| 1 | SIMPLE | t2 | index | fk_cat1,fk_cat2,fk_cats | fk_cats | 8 | NULL | 69 | Using where; Using index; Distinct;
| Using join buffer
As you can see a one-column index has the same name as the column it belongs to. I also added some useless indexes along with the used ones, just to see if they change the execution (which they don't).
The execution takes ~4.5 seconds.
When I add the column entl1.name to the select part (nothing else changed), the index fk_ent in el1 cannot be used any more:
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-------------------------+---------+---------+---------------+-------+------------------------------------
| 1 | SIMPLE | el1 | ALL | fk_ent | NULL | NULL | NULL | 15002 | Using temporary
The execution now takes ~8.5 seconds.
I always thought that the select part of a query does not influence the usage of indexes by the engine and doesn't affect performance in such a way.
Leaving out the attribute isn't a solution, and there are even more attributes that i have to select.
Even worse, the query in the used form is even a bit more complex and that makes the performance issue a big problem.
So my questions are:
1) What is the reason for this strange behavior?
2) How can I solve the performance problem?
Thanks for your help!
Gred

It's the DISTINCT restriction. You can think of that as another WHERE restriction. When you change the select list, you are really changing the WHERE clause for the DISTINCT restriction, and now the optimizer decides that it has to do a table scan anyway, so it might as well not use your index.
EDIT:
Not sure if this helps, but if I am understanding your data correctly, I think you can get rid of the DISTINCT restriction like this:
select
e1.idx, el1.idx, r1.fk_cat, r2.fk_cat
from ent e1
Inner Join ent_leng el1 ON el1.fk_ent=e1.idx
Inner Join rel_c r1 ON r1.fk_ent=e1.idx
Inner Join rel_c r2 ON r2.fk_ent=e1.idx
where
((r1.fk_cat=43) or Exists(Select 1 From _tax_c t1 Where r1.fk_cat=t1.fk_cat1 and t1.fk_cat2=43))
and
((r2.fk_cat=10) or Exists(Select 1 From _tax_c t2 Where r2.fk_cat=t2.fk_cat1 and t2.fk_cat2=10))

MySQL will return data from an index if possible, saving the entire row from being loaded. In this way, the selected columns can influence the index selection.
With this in mind, it can much more efficient to add all required columns to an index, especially in the case of only selecting a small subset of columns.

Related

Query Optimization - subselect in Left Join

I'm working on optimizing a sql query, and I found a particular line that appears to be killing my queries performance:
LEFT JOIN anothertable lastweek
AND lastweek.date>= (SELECT MAX(table.date)-7 max_date_lweek
FROM table table
WHERE table.id= lastweek.id)
AND lastweek.date< (SELECT MAX(table.date) max_date_lweek
FROM table table
WHERE table.id= lastweek.id)
I'm working on a way of optimizing these lines, but I'm stumped. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Time |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1908654 | 145057704 | 720461 | 00:00:29 |
| * 1 | HASH JOIN RIGHT OUTER | | 1908654 | 145057704 | 720461 | 00:00:29 |
| 2 | VIEW | VW_DCL_880D8DA3 | 427487 | 7694766 | 716616 | 00:00:28 |
| * 3 | HASH JOIN | | 427487 | 39328804 | 716616 | 00:00:28 |
| 4 | VIEW | VW_SQ_2 | 7174144 | 193701888 | 278845 | 00:00:11 |
| 5 | HASH GROUP BY | | 7174144 | 294139904 | 278845 | 00:00:11 |
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | TASK | 170994691 | 7010782331 | 65987 | 00:00:03 |
| * 7 | HASH JOIN | | 8549735 | 555732775 | 429294 | 00:00:17 |
| 8 | VIEW | VW_SQ_1 | 7174144 | 172179456 | 278845 | 00:00:11 |
| 9 | HASH GROUP BY | | 7174144 | 294139904 | 278845 | 00:00:11 |
| 10 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | TASK | 170994691 | 7010782331 | 65987 | 00:00:03 |
| 11 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | TASK | 170994691 | 7010782331 | 65987 | 00:00:03 |
| * 12 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | TASK | 1908654 | 110701932 | 2520 | 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
------------------------------------------
* 1 - access("SYS_ID"(+)="TASK"."PARENT")
* 3 - access("ITEM_2"="TASK_LWEEK"."SYS_ID")
* 3 - filter("TASK_LWEEK"."SNAPSHOT_DATE"<"MAX_DATE_LWEEK")
* 7 - access("ITEM_1"="TASK_LWEEK"."SYS_ID")
* 7 - filter("TASK_LWEEK"."SNAPSHOT_DATE">=INTERNAL_FUNCTION("MAX_DATE_LWEEK"))
* 12 - storage("TASK"."CLOSED_AT" IS NULL OR "TASK"."CLOSED_AT">=TRUNC(SYSDATE#!)-15)
* 12 - filter("TASK"."CLOSED_AT" IS NULL OR "TASK"."CLOSED_AT">=TRUNC(SYSDATE#!)-15)
Well, you are not even showing the select. As I can see that the select is done over Exadata ( Table Access Storage Full ) , perhaps you need to ask yourself why do you need to make 4 access to the same table.
You access fourth times ( lines 6, 10, 11, 12 ) to the main table TASK with 170994691 rows ( based on estimation of the CBO ). I don't know whether the statistics are up-to-date or it is optimizing sampling kick in due to lack of good statistics.
A solution could be use WITH for generating intermediate results that you need several times in your outline query
with my_set as
(SELECT MAX(table.date)-7 max_date_lweek ,
max(table.date) as max_date,
id from FROM table )
select
.......................
from ...
left join anothertable lastweek on ( ........ )
left join myset on ( anothertable.id = myset.id )
where
lastweek.date >= myset.max_date_lweek
and
lastweek.date < myset.max_date
Please, take in account that you did not provide the query, so I am guessing a lot of things.
Since complete information is not available I will suggest:
You are using the same query twice then why not use CTE such as
with CTE_example as (SELECT MAX(table.date), max_date_lweek, ID
FROM table table)
Looking at your explain plan, the only table being accessed is TASK. From that, I infer that the tables in your example: ANOTHERTABLE and TABLE are actually the same table and that, therefore, you are trying to get the last week of data that exists in that table for each id value.
If all that is true, it should be much faster to use an analytic function to get the max date value for each id and then limit based on that.
Here is an example of what I mean. Note I use "dte" instead of "date", to remove confusion with the reserved word "date".
LEFT JOIN ( SELECT lastweek.*,
max(dte) OVER ( PARTITION BY id ) max_date
FROM anothertable lastweek ) lastweek
ON 1=1 -- whatever other join conditions you have, seemingly omitted from your post
AND lastweek.dte >= lastweek.max_date - 7;
Again, this only works if I am correct in thinking that table and anothertable are actually the same table.

SQL LIKE question

I was wondering if there's a drawback (other than bad practice) to using something like this
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE id LIKE '1';
where id is an integer. I know you're supposed to use id=1 but I am writing a java program and if everything can use LIKE it'll be a lot easier for me. Also, so far, everything works fine; I get the correct query results, so if there is no drawback I will continue doing it like this.
edit: I am using MySQL.
MySQL will allow it, but will ignore the index:
mysql> describe METADATA_44;
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| AtextId | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| num | varchar(128) | YES | | NULL | |
| title | varchar(128) | YES | | NULL | |
| file | varchar(128) | YES | | NULL | |
| context | varchar(128) | YES | | NULL | |
| source | varchar(128) | YES | | NULL | |
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
6 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> explain select * from METADATA_44 where Atextid like '7';
+----+-------------+-------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | METADATA_44 | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 591 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+
mysql> explain select * from METADATA_44 where Atextid=7;
+----+-------------+-------------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | METADATA_44 | const | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | const | 1 | |
+----+-------------+-------------+-------+---------------+---------+---------+-------+------+-------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
You'd need to look at the Query Execution Plan on your RDBMS to verify that LIKE with no wildcards is treated as efficiently as an = would be. A quick test in SQL Server shows that it would give you an index scan rather than a seek so I guess it doesn't look at that when generating the plan and for SQL Server using = would be much more efficient. I don't have a MySQL install to test against.
Edit: Just to update this SQL Server seems to handle it fine and do a seek when the data type is varchar. When it is run against an int column though you get the scan. This is because it does an implicit conversion to varchar on the int column so can't use the index.
You are better off writing your query as
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE id = 1;
otherwise mysql will have to typecast '1' to int which is the type of the column id
so obviously there is a small performance penalty, when u know the type of the column supply the value according to that type
Speed. [15-char filler as there's not much more to say]
Without using any wildcards with LIKE, is should be fine for your needs if the speed/efficiency is something you don't bother with.

Eliminate full table scan due to BETWEEN (and GROUP BY)

Description
According to the explain command, there is a range that is causing a query to perform a full table scan (160k rows). How do I keep the range condition and reduce the scanning? I expect the culprit to be:
Y.YEAR BETWEEN 1900 AND 2009 AND
Code
Here is the code that has the range condition (the STATION_DISTRICT is likely superfluous).
SELECT
COUNT(1) as MEASUREMENTS,
AVG(D.AMOUNT) as AMOUNT,
Y.YEAR as YEAR,
MAKEDATE(Y.YEAR,1) as AMOUNT_DATE
FROM
CITY C,
STATION S,
STATION_DISTRICT SD,
YEAR_REF Y FORCE INDEX(YEAR_IDX),
MONTH_REF M,
DAILY D
WHERE
-- For a specific city ...
--
C.ID = 10663 AND
-- Find all the stations within a specific unit radius ...
--
6371.009 *
SQRT(
POW(RADIANS(C.LATITUDE_DECIMAL - S.LATITUDE_DECIMAL), 2) +
(COS(RADIANS(C.LATITUDE_DECIMAL + S.LATITUDE_DECIMAL) / 2) *
POW(RADIANS(C.LONGITUDE_DECIMAL - S.LONGITUDE_DECIMAL), 2)) ) <= 50 AND
-- Get the station district identification for the matching station.
--
S.STATION_DISTRICT_ID = SD.ID AND
-- Gather all known years for that station ...
--
Y.STATION_DISTRICT_ID = SD.ID AND
-- The data before 1900 is shaky; insufficient after 2009.
--
Y.YEAR BETWEEN 1900 AND 2009 AND
-- Filtered by all known months ...
--
M.YEAR_REF_ID = Y.ID AND
-- Whittled down by category ...
--
M.CATEGORY_ID = '003' AND
-- Into the valid daily climate data.
--
M.ID = D.MONTH_REF_ID AND
D.DAILY_FLAG_ID <> 'M'
GROUP BY
Y.YEAR
Update
The SQL is performing a full table scan, which results in MySQL performing a "copy to tmp table", as shown here:
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | C | const | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | const | 1 | |
| 1 | SIMPLE | Y | range | YEAR_IDX | YEAR_IDX | 4 | NULL | 160422 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | SD | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | climate.Y.STATION_DISTRICT_ID | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | S | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | climate.SD.ID | 1 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | M | ref | PRIMARY,YEAR_REF_IDX,CATEGORY_IDX | YEAR_REF_IDX | 8 | climate.Y.ID | 54 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | D | ref | INDEX | INDEX | 8 | climate.M.ID | 11 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------+-------------+
Answer
After using the STRAIGHT_JOIN:
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+---------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+---------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | C | const | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | const | 1 | Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | S | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 7795 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | SD | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | climate.S.STATION_DISTRICT_ID | 1 | Using index |
| 1 | SIMPLE | Y | ref | PRIMARY,STAT_YEAR_IDX | STAT_YEAR_IDX | 4 | climate.S.STATION_DISTRICT_ID | 1650 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | M | ref | PRIMARY,YEAR_REF_IDX,CATEGORY_IDX | YEAR_REF_IDX | 8 | climate.Y.ID | 54 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | D | ref | INDEX | INDEX | 8 | climate.M.ID | 11 | Using where |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------+---------------+---------+-------------------------------+------+---------------------------------+
Related
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/how-to-avoid-table-scan.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/where-optimizations.html
Optimize SQL that uses between clause
Thank you!
ONE Request... It looks like you KNOW your data. Add the keyword "STRAIGHT_JOIN" and see the results...
SELECT STRAIGHT_JOIN ... the rest of your query...
Straight-join tells MySql to DO IT AS I HAVE LISTED. So, your CITY table is the first in the FROM list, thus indicating you expect that to be your primary... Additionally, your WHERE clause of the CITY is the immediate filter. With that being said, it will probably fly through the rest of the query...
Hope it helps... Its worked for me with gov't data of millions of records queried and joined to 10+ lookup tables where mySql was trying to think for me.
in order to do efficient between queries you are going to want a b tree index on your YEAR column. for example:
CREATE INDEX id_index USING BTREE ON YEAR_REF (YEAR);
BTREE indexes allow for efficient range queries, if this is in fact the root problem then having an index like this should get rid of the full table scan and have it only scan the part of the table that is in the range. read more about btrees on wikipedia
However, as with any optimisation advice, you should measure to make sure that you don't do more harm than good.
Can you change from searching within a radius to search in a bounding box?
You know the city so you can calculate a bounding box in your application.
Perhaps this
S.LATITUDE_DECIMAL >= latitude_lower and
S.LATITUDE_DECIMAL <= latitude_upper and
S.LONGITUDE_DECIMAL >= longitude_lower and
S.LONGITUDE_DECIMAL <= longitude_upper
could be a little faster?

Oracle intermediate join table size

When we join more than 2 tables, oracle or for that matter any database decides to join 2 tables and use the result to join with subsequent tables. Is there a way to identify the intermediate join size. I am particularly interested in oracle. One solution I know is to use Autotrace in sqldeveloper which has the column LAST_OUTPUT_ROWS. But for queries executed by pl/sql and other means does oracle record the intermediate join size in some table?
I am asking this because recently we had a problem as someone dropped the statistics and failed to regenerate it and when traced through we found that oracle formed an intermediate table of 180 million rows before arriving at the final result of 6 rows and the query was quite slow.
Oracle can materialize the intermediate results of a table join in the temporary segment set for your session.
Since it's a one-off table that is deleted after the query is complete, its statistics are not stored.
However, you can estimate its size by building a plan for the query and looking at ROWS parameters of the appropriate operation:
EXPLAIN PLAN FOR
WITH q AS
(
SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */
e1.value AS val1, e2.value AS val2
FROM t_even e1, t_even e2
)
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM q
SELECT *
FROM TABLE(DBMS_XPLAN.display())
Plan hash value: 3705384459
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | | 43G (5)|999:59:59 |
| 1 | TEMP TABLE TRANSFORMATION | | | | | |
| 2 | LOAD AS SELECT | | | | | |
| 3 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 100T| 909T| 42G (3)|999:59:59 |
| 4 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | T_ODD | 10M| 47M| 4206 (3)| 00:00:51 |
| 5 | BUFFER SORT | | 10M| 47M| 42G (3)|999:59:59 |
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | T_ODD | 10M| 47M| 4204 (3)| 00:00:51 |
| 7 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | | |
| 8 | VIEW | | 100T| | 1729M (62)|999:59:59 |
| 9 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | SYS_TEMP_0FD9D6604_2660595 | 100T| 909T| 1729M (62)|999:59:59 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the materialized table is called SYS_TEMP_0FD9D6604_2660595 and the estimated record count is 100T (100,000,000,000,000 records)

MySQL explain anomaly

Consider the following query:
select FEE_NUMBER
from CARRIER_FEE CF
left outer join CONTYPE_FEE_LIST cfl on CF.CAR_FEE_ID=cfl.CAR_FEE_ID and cfl.CONT_TYPE_ID=3
where CF.SEQ_NO = (
select max(CF2.SEQ_NO) from CARRIER_FEE CF2
where CF2.FEE_NUMBER=CF.FEE_NUMBER
and CF2.COMPANY_ID=CF.COMPANY_ID
group by CF2.FEE_NUMBER)
group by CF.CAR_FEE_ID
On my laptop this returns no results. Using exactly the same (dumped) database on my servers it does return results.
If I run an EXPLAIN on my laptop I get this
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+--------------------+-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | CF | index | NULL | PRIMARY | 8 | NULL | 132 | Using where |
| 1 | PRIMARY | cfl | ref | FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_1,FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_2 | FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_1 | 8 | odysseyB.CF.CAR_FEE_ID | 6 | |
| 2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | CF2 | ref | FK_SURCHARGE_1 | FK_SURCHARGE_1 | 8 | func | 66 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
Whereas on all of my other servers it gives this (note the difference in the ref column)
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+--------------------+-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | CF | index | NULL | PRIMARY | 8 | NULL | 132 | Using where |
| 1 | PRIMARY | cfl | ref | FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_1,FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_2 | FK_CONTYPE_FEE_LIST_1 | 8 | odysseyB.CF.CAR_FEE_ID | 6 | |
| 2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | CF2 | ref | FK_SURCHARGE_1 | FK_SURCHARGE_1 | 8 | odysseyB.CF.COMPANY_ID | 66 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
If I remove either the join, the subquery or the last group-by then I get the expected results.
I'm assuming that this is a configuration issue, however it's not one that I've seen before. Does anybody know what might cause this?
My laptop is running OSX 10.6 with MySQL 5.0.41. Another laptop running OSX 10.5.7 and MySQL 5.0.37 works fine, as do the Linux servers running MySQL 5.0.27.
Can anyone explain the difference between one explain plan using ref=func and the other using ref=odysseyB.CF.COMPANY_ID?
Thanks.
On both machines:
mysql> SHOW CREATE TABLE CARRIER_FEE CF;
Make sure that both table ENGINE types are the same.
Also, since you are using OS X 10.6 on the machine having the error? Perhaps the data types on that OS have different qualities than 10.5.x.
Seems like people are having compatibility problems with snow leopard. Try installing MySQL 5.4 on your 10.6 laptop.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?10,278942,278942#msg-278942
I don't know why it's giving different results. You don't have exactly the same data dump, since the row counts reported in your EXPLAIN reports are different. I'd recommend doing some simpler queries to test your assumptions.
Also double-check that you're really executing the exact same SQL query on both servers. For instance, if you inadvertently changed your left outer join to an inner join, that could make the whole query return no results.
BTW, tangential to your question but I solve these "greatest row per group" types of queries with an outer join:
select FEE_NUMBER
from CARRIER_FEE CF
left outer join CARRIER_FEE CF2
on CF.FEE_NUMBER = CF2.FEE_NUMBER and CF.COMPANY_ID = CF.COMPANY_ID
and CF.SEQ_NO < cf2.SEQ_NO
left outer join CONTYPE_FEE_LIST cfl
on CF.CAR_FEE_ID=cfl.CAR_FEE_ID and cfl.CONT_TYPE_ID=3
where CF2.SEQ_NO IS NULL
group by CF.CAR_FEE_ID;
This type of solution is often much faster than the correlated subquery solution you're currently using. I wouldn't think that could change the result of the query, I'm just offering it as an option.