I'm using TopLink as my ORM and MySQL as the DB.
I traded my auto-increment primary keys for GUIDs for one of my tables (alright, not quite: I'm actually using a random 64 bit integer, but that's good enough for my needs).
Anyway, now queries, which don't even use the key, are taking much longer.
What can I do?
If your table is indexed by the fields your are querying by. content of the key shouldn't have any noticeable performance impact. They maybe something else there .
Make sure the key column really is the PRIMARY KEY and thus the clustered (physical) index.
Make sure you have indexes that hit your common queries.
Random integer? You realize there's a chance of hitting the same pri key?
If you're using innodb tables in MySQL all rows are referred to by primary key so if you're using a secondary key performance will suffer.
i have a field that represents the creationDate. how can i force my table to be index accordingly?
create index Table_creationDate on Table(creationDate);
Related
There is a table in our environment. Recently, it was discovered that performance was greatly improved by sorting datetime, which the dba wanted to make the primary key. Since he can't guarantee uniqueness with the datetime, he added the id that was once the primary key, into his new composite key.
So there is a table with the primary key as datetime / id and also the clustered index is defined this way. All the pk / fk relationships are still set up properly and exist on the id to id paradigm one would expect.
what could be the possible problem of a lopsided primary key?
And performance is considerably improved with this change.
however, in the schema, the actual "primary key" is two columns. what could possibly go wrong?
Do not do that! Set up a unique index with the two fields. It does not have to be primary key. In fact if you want the original key to remain unique, then this is a terrible idea.
EDIT: This answer was assuming Sql Server. If it turns out that it is not then I will delete my answer.
You do not list details so I will have to give a very general answer. In my research I have found that most will recommend a short primary key / clustered index.
The real key here though is what you mean by increased performance. Is it just one query? In other words does this change have beneficial or at least insignificant performance impact on all operations of this data? User interfaces, all reports, and so on. Or is this robbing peter to pay paul?
If this were a reporting database or data warehouse where the majority of reports are based on date, I could see why people might recommend having the clustered index setup in such a way that it would benefit all reports, or the most important ones.
In any other situation I can think of having a non-clustered index would provide almost the same level or performance increase without increasing the size of the PK, which is used in all lookups (more bytes read = slower performance) as well as taking up more space on your data pages.
EDIT:
This article explains this topic better than I could.
https://www.simple-talk.com/sql/learn-sql-server/effective-clustered-indexes/
The performance advantage you are currently seeing(if genuine) is due to the clustered index associated with the primary key, and not the primary key itself. If you are happy with the current index, but are concerned about uniqueness you should keep the unique datetime / id as your clustered index but revert to your old unique id as the primary key.
This also addresses the problem where other tables referencing this primary key would have required the creation of a likely inappropriate datetime column to create a foreign key relationship.
I've read a lot about this issue.. (also read this: Tables with no Primary Key)
it seems like there is no reason to use tables with no PK. so why does PostgreSQL allows it? can you give an example when it's good idea to not indicate PK?
I think the answer to your question lies in trying to understand what are the drawbacks of having a Primary-Key (PK) in the first place.
One obvious 'drawback' (depending on how you see it) in maintaining a PK is that it has its own overhead during an INSERT. So, in order to increase INSERT performance (assuming for e.g. the sample case is a logging table, where Querying is done offline) I would remove all Constraints / PK if possible and definitely would increase table performance. You may argue that pure logging should be done outside the DB (in a noSQL DB such as Cassandra etc.) but then again at least its possible in PostgreSQL.
A primary key is a special form of a unique constraint. A unique constraint is always backed up by an index. And the disadvantage of an index is that it takes time to update. Tables with an index have lower update, delete and insert performance.
So if you have a table that has a lot of modifications, and few queries, you can improve performance by omitting the primary key.
AFAIK, the primary key is primarily needed for the relationships between tables as a foreign key. If you have a table that is not linked to anything you don't need a primary key. In Excel spreadsheets there're no primary keys but a spreadsheet is not a relational database.
This may be a pretty naive and stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway
I have a table with several fields, none of which are unique, and a primary key, which obviously is.
This table is accessed via the non-unique fields regularly, but no user SP or process access data via the primary key. Is the primary key necessary then? Is it used behind the scenes? Will removing it affect performance Positively or Negatively?
Necessary? No. Used behind the scenes? Well, it's saved to disk and kept in the row cache, etc. Removing will slightly increase your performance (use a watch with millisecond precision to notice).
But ... the next time someone needs to create references to this table, they will curse you. If they are brave, they will add a PK (and wait for a long time for the DB to create the column). If they are not brave or dumb, they will start creating references using the business key (i.e. the data columns) which will cause a maintenance nightmare.
Conclusion: Since the cost of having a PK (even if it's not used ATM) is so small, let it be.
Do you have any foreign keys, do you ever join on the PK?
If the answer to this is no, and your app never retrieves an item from the table by its PK, and no query ever uses it in a where clause, therefore you just added an IDENTITY column to have a PK, then:
the PK in itself adds no value, but does no damage either
the fact that the PK is very likely the clustered index too is .. it depends.
If you have NC indexes, then the fact that you have a narrow artificial clustered key (the IDENTITY PK) is helpful in keeping those indexes narrow (the CDX key is reproduced in every NC leaf slots). So a PK, even if never used, is helpful if you have significant NC indexes.
On the other hand, if you have a prevalent access pattern, a certain query that outweighs all the other is frequency and importance, or which is part of a critical time code path (eg. is the query run on every page visit on your site, or every second by and app etc) then that query is a good candidate to dictate the clustered key order.
And finally, if the table is seldom queried but often written to then it may be a good candidate for a HEAP (no clustered key at all) since heaps are so much better at inserts. See Comparing Tables Organized with Clustered Indexes versus Heaps.
The primary key is behind the scenes a clustered index (by default unless generated as a non clustered index) and holds all the data for the table. If the PK is an identity column the inserts will happen sequentially and no page splits will occur.
But if you don't access the id column at all then you probably want to add some indexes on the other columns. Also when you have a PK you can setup FK relationships
In the logical model, a table must have at least one key. There is no reason to arbitarily specify that one of the keys is 'primary'; all keys are equal. Although the concept of 'primary key' can be traced back to Ted Codd's early work, the mistake was picked up early on has long been corrected in relational theory.
Sadly, PRIMARY KEY found its way into SQL and we've had to live with it ever since. SQL tables can have duplicate rows and, if you consider the resultset of a SELECT query to also be a table, then SQL tables can have duplicate rows too. Relational theorists dislike SQL a lot. However, just because SQL lets you do all kinds of wacky non-relational things, that doesn't mean that you have to actually do them. It is good practice to ensure that every SQL table has at least one key.
In SQL, using PRIMARY KEY on its own has implications e.g. NOT NULL, UNIQUE, the table's default reference for foreign keys. In SQL Server, using PRIMARY KEY on its own has implications e.g. the table's clustered index. However, in all these cases, the implicit behavior can be made explicit using specific syntax.
You can use UNIQUE (constraint rather than index) and NOT NULL in combination to enforce keys in SQL. Therefore, no, a primary key (or even PRIMARY KEY) is not necessary for SQL Server.
I would never have a table without a primary key. Suppose you ever need to remove a duplicate - how would you identify which one to remove and which to keep?
A PK is not necessary.
But you should consider to place a non-unique index on the columns that you use for querying (i.e. that appear in the WHERE-clause). This will considerably boost lookup performance.
The primary key when defined will help improve performance within the database for indexing and relationships.
I always tend to define a primary key as an auto incrementing integer in all my tables, regardless of if I access it or not, this is because when you start to scale up your application, you may find you do actually need it, and it makes life a lot simpler.
A primary key is really a property of your domain model, and it uniquely identifies an instance of a domain object.
Having a clustered index on a montonically increasing column (such as an identity column) will mean page splits will not occur, BUT insertions will unbalance the index over time and therefore rebuilding indexes needs to be done regulary (or when fragmentation reaches a certain threshold).
I have to have a very good reason to create a table without a primary key.
As SQLMenace said, the clustered index is an important column for the physical layout of the table. In addition, having a clustered index, especially a well chosen one on a skinny column like an integer pk, actually increases insert performance.
If you are accessing them via non-key fields the performance probably will not change. However it might be nice to keep the PK for future enhancements or interfaces to these tables. Does your application only use this one table?
I have read a lot of articles about whether we should have primary keys that are identity columns, but I'm still confused.
There are advantages of making columns are identity as it would give better performance in joins and provides data consistency. But there is a major drawback associated with identity ,i.e.When INSERT statement fails, still the IDENTITY value increases If a transaction is rolled back, the new IDENTITY column value isn't rolled back, so we end up with gaps in sequencing. I can use GUIDs (by using NEWSEQUENTIALID) but it reduces performance.
Gaps should not matter: the identity column is internal and not for end user usage or recognition.
GUIDs will kill performance, even sequential ones, because of the 16 byte width.
An identity column should be chosen to respect the physical implementation after modelling your data and working out what your natural keys are. That is, the chosen natural key is the logical key but you choose a surrogate key (identity) because you know how the engine works.
Or you use an ORM and let the client tail wag the database dog...
For all practical purposes, integers are ideal for primary keys and auto increment is a perfect way to generate them. As long as your PK is meaningless (surrogate) it will be protected from creativity of you customers and serve its main purpose (to identify a row in a table) just fine. Indexes are packed, joins fast as it gets, and it is easy to partition tables.
If you happen to need GUID, that's fine too; however, think auto-increment integer first.
I would like to say that depends on your needs. We use only Guids as primary keys (with default set to NewID) because we develop a distributed system with many Sql Server instances, so we have to be sure that every Sql Server generate unique primary key values.
But when using a Guid column as PK, be sure not to use it as your clustered index (thanks to marc_s for the link)
Advantage of the Guid type:
You can create unique values on different locations without synchronization
Disadvantage:
Its a large datatype (16 Bytes) and needs significant more space
It creates index fragmentation (at least when using the newid() function)
Dataconsistency is not an issue with primary keys independent of the datatype because a primary key has to be unique by definition!
I don't believe that an identity column has better join performance. At all, performance is a matter of the right indexes. A primary key is a constraint not an index.
Is your need to have a primary key of typ int with no gaps? This should'nt be a problem normally.
"yes, it KILLS performance - totally. I went from a legacy system with GUID as PK/CK and 99.5% index fragmentation on a daily basis to using INT IDENTITY - HUGE difference. Hardly any index fragmentation anymore, performance is significantly better. GUIDs as Clustering Index on your SQL Server table are BAD BAD BAD - period."
Might be true, but I see no logical reasoning according to which this leads me to conclude that GUIDs PER SE are also BAD BAD BAD.
Maybe you should consider using other types of indexes on such data. And if your dbms does not offer you a choice between several types of index, then perhaps you should consider getting yourself a better dbms.
I have a table with 16 columns. It will be most frequently used table in web aplication and it will contain about few hundred tousand rows. Database is created on sql server 2008.
My question is choice for primary key. What is quicker? I can use complex primary key with two bigint-s or i can use one varchar value but i will need to concatenate it after?
There are many more factors you must consider:
data access prevalent pattern, how are you going to access the table?
how many non-clustered indexes?
frequency of updates
pattern of updates (sequential inserts, random)
pattern of deletes
All these factors, and specially the first two, should drive your choice of the clustered key. Note that the primary key and clustered key are different concepts, often confused. Read up my answer on Should I design a table with a primary key of varchar or int? for a lengthier discussion on the criteria that drive a clustered key choice.
Without any information on your access patterns I can answer very briefly and concise, and actually correct: the narrower key is always quicker (for reasons of IO). However, this response bares absolutely no value. The only thing that will make your application faster is to choose a key that is going to be used by the query execution plans.
A primary key which does not rely on any underlying values (called a surrogate key) is a good choice. That way if the row changes, the ID doesn't have to, and any tables referring to it (Foriegn Keys) will not need to change. I would choose an autonumber (i.e. IDENTITY) column for the primary key column.
In terms of performance, a shorter, integer based primary key is best.
You can still create your clustered index on multiple columns.
Why not just a single INT auto-generated primary key? INT is 32-bit, so it can handle over 4 billion records.
CREATE TABLE Records (
recordId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
...
);
A surrogate key might be a fine idea if there are foreign key relationships on this table. Using a surrogate will save tables that refer to it from having to duplicate all those columns in their tables.
Another important consideration is indexes on columns that you'll be using in WHERE clauses. Your performance will suffer if you don't. Make sure that you add appropriate indexes, over and above the primary key, to avoid table scans.
What do you mean quicker? if you need to search quicker, you can create index for any column or create full text search. the primary key just make sure you do not have duplicated records.
The decision relies upon its use. If you are using the table to save data mostly and not retrieve it, then a simple key. If you are mostly querying the data and it is mostly static data where the key values will not change, your index strategy needs to optimize the data to the most frequent query that will be used. Personally, I like the idea of using GUIDs for the primary key and an int for the clustered index. That allows for easy data imports. But, it really depends upon your needs.
Lot’s of variables you haven’t mentioned; whether the data in the two columns is “natural” and there is a benefit in identifying records by a logical ID, if disclosure of the key via a UI poses a risk, how important performance is (a few hundred thousand rows is pretty minimal).
If you’re not too fussy, go the auto number path for speed and simplicity. Also take a look at all the posts on the site about SQL primary key types. Heaps of info here.
Is it a ER Model or Dimensional Model. In ER Model, they should be separate and should not be surrogated. The entire record could have a single surrogate for easy references in URLs etc. This could be a hash of all parts of the composite key or an Identity.
In Dimensional Model, also they must be separate and they all should be surrogated.