I wasn't sure if it recounted the rows, or if after it retrieved the whole result set, it only grabbed the total post query?
when you run a statement, mysql sends the row count in the header. so no, the query is not re-run to get the count.
this has an interesting implication for queries with LIMIT. mysql_num_rows() returns the number of rows returned after LIMIT is applied. if you use the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS keyword in your SELECT statement, then mysql_num_rows() returns the number of rows that would have been returned if LIMIT were not used. this is helpful for paging.
Quoting the manual literally, it “retrieves the number of rows from a result set”. It obviously doesn't run a second query if that's your question (not sure what you mean by “recount all the rows”).
Related
Let's say i have a very big database , if i execute a search query directly then count the returned rows would it be more faster ? Or using COUNT(searchquery) then start executing query like ->
SELECT *
FROM TABLE
WHERE bla='blabla'
OFFSET 0 FETCH NEXT 20 ROWS ONLY
I searched for it but i couldn't find any solution.
Do the count in the database! It will be much faster.
First, a count(*) only returns one row and one value. That is much, much less data -- and much faster -- than returning all the rows.
Second, a count(*) does not reference any columns in the select, so the query can be better optimized. It might be possible to get the count without ever looking at the data pages.
It looks like you are doing paging. You need the total count to do display the total count and calculate the total number of pages to the user, yes?
Than Gordon's answer is the one to use.
I have an strange behavior on an oracle database. We make a huge insert of around 3.1 million records. Everything fine so far.
Shortly after the insert finished (around 1 too 10 minutes) I execute two statements.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TABLE
SELECT * FROM TABLE
The result from the first statement is fine it gives me the exact number of rows that was inserted.
The result from the second statement is now the problem. Depending on the time, the number of rows that are returned is for example around 500K lower than the result from the first statement. The difference of the two results is decreasing with time.
So I have to wait 15 to 30 minutes before both statements return the same number of rows.
I already talked with the oracle dba about this issue but he has no idea how this could happen.
Any ideas, questions or suggestions?
Update
When I select only an index column I get the correct row count.
When I instead select an non index column I get again the wrong row count.
That doesn't sounds like a bug to me, if I understood you correctly, it just takes time for Oracle to fetch the entire table . After all, 3 Mil is not a small amount.
As opposed to count, which brings 1 record with the total number of rows.
If after some waiting, the number of records being output equals to the number that the count query returns, then everything is fine.
Have you already verified with these things:
1- Count single column instead of * ALL to verify both result
2- You can verify both queries result by adding where clause and gradually select more rows by removing conditions so that you can get the issue where it is returning different value from both.
I think you should check Execution plan to identify missing indexes to improve performance.
Add missing Indexes and check the result.
Why missing Indexes are impotent:
To count row, Oracle engine no need to go throw paging operation. But while fetching all the details from a table, it requires to go through paging.
And paging process depends on indexes created on a table to fetch the data effectively and fast.
So to decrease time for your second statement, you should find missing indexes and create those indexes.
How to Find Missing Indexes:
You can start with DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY, and look at all statements that contain that type of hint.
From there, you can pull the index name coming from that hint, and then do a lookup on dba_indexes to see if the index exists, is valid, etc.
As you may (or may not) already know, SQLite does not provide information about total number of results from the query. One has to wrap the query in SELECT count(*) FROM (original query); in order to get row count.
This worked perfectly fine for me, until one of users created custom SQL function (you can define your own functions in SQLite) that does INSERT into another, unrelated table. Then he executes query:
SELECT customFunction() FROM primaryTable WHERE primaryKeyColumnId = 1;
The query returns always 1 row, that is certain. It turns out that customFunction() was called twice (and inserted to that other table 2 rows) and that's because my application called his query as usuall and then called count(*) on that query as a followup.
How to approach this problem? How to execute only the original query and still have a row count from SQLite?
I'm using SQLite (3.13.0) C API.
You either have to remove such function calls from the query, or you cannot get the row count before actually having stepped through all the result rows.
In big query I am running a query on exported tables from GA.
I can not seem to get big query to limit the results. Here is a sample query, quite basic.
SELECT * FROM [1111111.ga_sessions_20140318] LIMIT 20000
The result set returns but with 7 million+ rows! I have tried this several different ways, ie. out to a table, just return result set, use cache results, don't use cached results, etc.
No matter which table I try to query it always returns the entire table.
This is basically the same as the sample query big query gives when clicking on the query table button except I changed the limit value from 1000 to 20000.
Anyone have any insight?
As noted by the comment on the original question:
"Is it possible that the number of rows shown at the bottom of the
result set returned in big query is my 20000 main object records plus
all the nested records?"
The answer is yes: BigQuery will apply the limit to the number of rows in the response, but if there are nested records involved, those will be flattened in the output.
I'm concerned about the performance of a query such as SELECT * FROM user LIMIT 5 on a very large user table. Will it select all records then limit to 5?
More specifically will the following query select all assetids before limiting...
SELECT * FROM assets WHERE asset_id IN(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) LIMIT 5
I realize it doesn't make sense to include all ids in the IN() clause if I'm limiting but I'd like to know how mysql behaves in this situation.
Thanks.
This depends on your query. See this page for more explanations of how LIMIT is applied:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/limit-optimization.html
For that specific query, the following would apply:
"As soon as MySQL has sent the required number of rows to the client, it aborts the query unless you are using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS."
Hope that helps.
Your query will have to scan all rows by asset_id column, so you better have an index on it. In my experience, you would always want to set an order by clause also, since the result set will be internally (i.e. order unknown), and you would not know why the returned 5 results were the ones you actually wanted.