I have project in php + mysql (over 2 000 000 rows). Please view this php code.
<?php
for($i=0;$i<20;$i++)
{
$start = rand(1,19980);
$select_images_url_q = "SELECT * FROM photo_gen WHERE folder='$folder' LIMIT $start,2 ";
$result_select = (mysql_query($select_images_url_q));
while($row = mysql_fetch_array($result_select))
{
echo '<li class="col-lg-2 col-md-3 col-sm-3 col-xs-4" style="height:150px">
<img class="img-responsive" src="http://static.gif.plus/'.$folder.'/'.$row['code'].'_s.gif">
</li>';
}
}
?>
This code work very slowly in $start = rand(1,19980); position, Please help how I can make select request with mysql random function, thank you
Depending on what your code is doing with $folder, you may be vulnerable to SQL injection.
For better security, consider moving to PDO or MySQLi and using prepared statements. I wrote a library called EasyDB to make it easier for developers to adopt better security practices.
The fast, sane, and efficient way to select N distinct random elements from a database is as follows:
Get the number of rows that match your condition (i.e. WHERE folder = ?).
Generate a random number between 0 and this number.
Select a row with a given offset like you did.
Store the ID of the previously generated row in an ever-growing list to exclude from the results, and decrement the number of rows.
An example that uses EasyDB is as follows:
// Connect to the database here:
$db = \ParagonIE\EasyDB\Factory::create(
'mysql;host=localhost;dbname=something',
'username',
'putastrongpasswordhere'
);
// Maintain an array of previous record IDs in $exclude
$exclude = array();
$count = $db->single('SELECT count(id) FROM photo_gen WHERE folder = ?', $folder);
// Select _up to_ 40 values. If we have less than 40 in the folder, stop
// when we've run out of photos to load:
$max = $count < 40 ? $count : 40;
// The loop:
for ($i = 0; $i < $max; ++$i) {
// The maximum value will decrease each iteration, which makes
// sense given that we are excluding one more result each time
$r = mt_rand(0, ($count - $i - 1));
// Dynamic query
$qs = "SELECT * FROM photo_gen WHERE folder = ?";
// We add AND id NOT IN (2,6,7,19, ...) to prevent duplicates:
if ($i > 0) {
$qs .= " AND id NOT IN (" . implode(', ', $exclude) . ")";
}
$qs .= "ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT ".$r.", 1";
$row = $db->row($qs, $folder);
/**
* Now you can operate on $row here. Feel free to copy the
* contents of your while($row=...) loop in place of this comment.
*/
// Prevent duplicates
$exclude []= (int) $row['id'];
}
Gordon's answer suggests using ORDER BY RAND(), which in general is a bad idea and can make your queries very slow. Furthermore, although he says that you shouldn't need to worry about there being less than 40 rows (presumably, because of the probability involved), this will fail in edge cases.
A quick note about mt_rand(): It's a biased and predictable random number generator with only 4 billion possible seeds. If you want better results, look into random_int() (PHP 7 only, but I'm working on a compatibility layer for PHP 5 projects. See the linked answer for more information.)
Actually, even though the table has 2+ million rows, I'm guessing that a given folder has many fewer. Hence, this should be reasonable with an index on photo_gen(folder):
SELECT *
FROM photo_gen
WHERE folder = '$folder'
ORDER BY rand()
LIMIT 40;
If a folder can still have tens or hundreds of thousands of examples, I would suggest a slight variation:
SELECT pg.**
FROM photo_gen pg cross join
(select count(*) cnt from photo_gen where folder = $folder) as cnt
WHERE folder = '$folder' and
rand() < 500 / cnt
ORDER BY rand()
LIMIT 40;
The WHERE expression should get about 500 rows (subject to the vagaries of sample variation). There is a really high confidence that there will be at least 40 (you don't need to worry about it). The final sort should be fast.
There are definitely other methods, but they are complicated by the where clause. The index is probably the key thing you need for improved performance.
It's better to firstly compose your SQL query (as a string in PHP) once and then just execute it once.
Or you could use this way to select values if it fits your case: Select n random rows from SQL Server table
Related
My problem is explained below.
This is my PHP code running on my server right now :
$limit = 10000;
$annee = '2017';
//Counting the lines I need to delete
$sql = " SELECT COUNT(*) FROM historisation.cdr_".$annee." a
INNER JOIN transatel.cdr_transatel_v2 b ON a.id_cdr = b.id_cdr ";
$t = $db_transatel->selectAll($sql);
//The number of lines I have to delete
$i = $t[0][0];
do {
if ($i < $limit) {
$limit = $i;
}
//The problem is comming from that delete
$selectFromHistoryAndDelete = " DELETE FROM transatel.cdr_transatel_v2
WHERE id_cdr IN (
SELECT a.id_cdr FROM historisation.cdr_".$annee." a
INNER JOIN (SELECT id_cdr FROM historisation.cdr_transatel_v2) b ON a.id_cdr = b.id_cdr
)
LIMIT " . $limit;
$delete = $db_transatel->exec($selectFromHistoryAndDelete, $params);
$i = $i - $limit;
} while ($i > 0);
The execution of the query.
As you can see on the picture, in the first 195 loops the execution time was between 13 and 17 seconds.
It increased to 73 seconds on the 195th loop and to 1305 seconds on the 196th loop.
Now the query is running for 2000 seconds.
The query is deleting rows in a test table that no one is using right.
I'm deleting row 10,000 by 10,000 for the query to be quick and not overload the server.
I am wondering why is the execution time increasing like that, I though it will be quicker at the end because I though the inner join would be much quicker as they are less rows in the table.
Does anyone has an idea ?
Edit : The tables engine is MyISAM.
Based on your latest comment the inner join is redundant, since you're deleting from the table that contains the values you're joining on. In essence you're having to process b.id_cdr = a.id_cdr twice, since the number of values compared on cdr_2017 are not changed by the inner join, just the number of values queried to be deleted.
As for the cause of the incremental slowness, it is because you are manually performing the same function as SELECT cdr_id FROM cdr_2017 LIMIT 10000 OFFSET x.
That is to say, your query has to perform a full-table scan on cdr_2017 to determine the id values to delete. As you delete the values, the SQL optimizer has to move further through the cdr_2017 table to retrieve the values.
Resulting in
DELETE FROM IN(1,2,3,...10000)
DELETE FROM IN(1,2,3,...20000)
...
DELETE FROM IN(1,2,3,...1000000)
Assuming cdr_id is the incremental primary key, to resolve the issue you could use the last index retrieved from cdr_2017 to filter the selected values.
This will be much faster, as a full-table scan is no longer required to validate the joined records, since you're now utilizing an indexed value on both sides of the query.
$sql = " SELECT COUNT(a.cdr_id) FROM historisation.cdr_".$annee." a
INNER JOIN transatel.cdr_transatel_v2 b ON a.id_cdr = b.id_cdr ";
$t = $db_transatel->selectAll($sql);
//The number of lines I have to delete
$i = $t[0][0];
//set starting index
$previous = 0;
do {
if ($i < $limit) {
$limit = $i;
}
$selectFromHistoryAndDelete = 'DELETE d
FROM transatel.cdr_transatel_v2 AS d
JOIN (
SELECT #previous := cdr_id AS cdr_id
FROM historisation.cdr_2017
WHERE cdr_id > ' . $previous . '
ORDER BY cdr_id
LIMIT 10000
) AS a
ON a.cdr_id = d.cdr_id';
$db_transatel->exec($selectFromHistoryAndDelete, $params);
//retrieve last id selected in cdr_2017 to use in next iteration
$v = $db_transatel->selectAll('SELECT #previous'); //prefer fetchColumn
$previous = $v[0][0];
$i = $i - $limit;
} while ($i > 0);
//optionally reclaim table-space
$db_transatel->exec('OPTIMIZE TABLE transatel.cdr_transatel_v2', $params);
You could also refactor to use cdr_id > $previous AND cdr_id < $last to remove the order by limit clauses, which should also improve performance.
Though I would like to note, that a table lock on cdr_transatel_v2 is performed during this operation by the MyISAM database engine. Due to the way MySQL handles concurrent sessions and queries, there is not much gain from a batch delete in this manner, and is really only applicable to InnoDB and transactions. Especially when using PHP with FastCGI, as opposed to Apache mod_php. Since other queries not on cdr_transatel_v2 will still be executed and write operations on cdr_transatel_v2 will still be queued. If using mod_php I would reduce the limit to 1,000 records to reduce queue times.
For more information see https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/internal-locking.html#internal-table-level-locking
Alternative approach.
Considering the large number of records that need to be deleted, when the records deleted exceed those that are kept, it would be more beneficial to invert the operation by using INSERT instead of DELETE.
#ensure the storage table doesn't exist already
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS cdr_transatel_temp;
#duplicate the structure of the original table
CREATE TABLE transatel.cdr_transatel_temp
LIKE transatel.cdr_transatel_v2;
#copy the records that are not to be deleted from the original table
INSERT transatel.cdr_transatel_temp
SELECT *
FROM transatel.cdr_transatel_v2 AS d
LEFT JOIN historisation.cdr_2017 AS b
ON b.cdr_id = d.cdr_id
WHERE b.cdr_id IS NULL;
#replace the original table with the storage table
RENAME TABLE transatel.cdr_transatel_v2 to transatel.backup,
transatel.cdr_transatel_temp to cdr_transatel_v2;
#remove the original table
DROP TABLE transatel.backup;
I am currently working on a project that requires me to scan the Public Whip Raw Data and return a list of MP's names (who have voted for a policy that matches the keywords that have been input, eg "fox hunting). The current SQL query takes about 30 seconds to finish executing, which is way too long.
This is the SQL query that looks in the "distance" table and the "policy" table. (This is what is taking too long to execute)
$sql = "SELECT DISTINCT distance.mp_id from distance WHERE distance.distance < 0.2 AND distance.dream_id IN (SELECT dream_id from policy WHERE UPPER(policy.title) LIKE UPPER('%".$keyword."%')) ORDER BY distance.distance LIMIT 5";
This is the rest of the code that just echo's out the mp names
$results = mysql_query($sql);
echo "<ul>";
while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($results)) {
$mpid = $row['mp_id'];
$sql = "SELECT mp.first_name,mp.last_name FROM mp WHERE mp_id = ".$mpid;
$result = mysql_query($sql);
$result = mysql_fetch_assoc($result);
echo "<li>".$result['first_name']." ".$result['last_name']."</li>\n";
}
echo "</ul>";
This is your query:
SELECT DISTINCT distance.mp_id
from distance
WHERE distance.distance < 0.2 AND
distance.dream_id IN (SELECT dream_id
from policy
WHERE UPPER(policy.title) LIKE UPPER('%".$keyword."%')
)
ORDER BY distance.distance
LIMIT 5;
In some versions of MySQL, the in with a subquery is inefficient. Let me also assume that mp_id is unique for the table distance. This query might work better:
SELECT d.mp_id
from distance d
WHERE d.distance < 0.2 AND
exists (select 1
from policy p
where UPPER(p.title) LIKE UPPER('%".$keyword."%') and
p.dream_id = d.dream_id
)
ORDER BY d.distance
LIMIT 5;
This query would be further improved by having an index on policy(dream_id) and possibly distance(distance).
Depending on how large the policy table is, one major impediment to performance is the expression UPPER(policy.title) LIKE UPPER('%".$keyword."%'). If you really mean equality, then use equality and not like with wildcards. If you are really storing multiple keywords in the title column, then consider either breaking these out into a separate table or using full text search.
I have been running a foreach loop 1000 times on php page. The code inside the foreach loop looks like below:
$first = mysql_query("SELECT givenname FROM first_names order by rand() LIMIT 1");
$first_n = mysql_fetch_array($first);
$first_name = $first_n['givenname'];
$last = mysql_query("SELECT surname FROM last_name order by rand() LIMIT 1");
$last_n = mysql_fetch_array($last);
$last_name = $last_n['surname'];
$first_lastname = $first_name . " " . $last_name;
$add = mysql_query("SELECT streetaddress FROM user_addresss order by rand() LIMIT 1");
$addr = mysql_fetch_array($add);
$address = $addr['streetaddress'];
$unlisted = "unlisted";
$available = "available";
$arr = array(
$first_lastname,
$address,
$unlisted,
$available
);
Then I have been using array_rand function to get a randomized value each time the loop runs:
<td><?php echo $arr[array_rand($arr)] ?></td>
So loading the php page is taking a really long time. Is there a way I could optimize this code. As I need a unique value each time the loop runs
The problem is not your PHP foreach loop. If you order your MySQL table by RAND(), you are making a serious mistake. Let me explain to you what happens when you do this.
Every time you make a MySQL request, MySQL will attempt to map your search parameters (WHERE, ORDER BY) to indices to cut down on the data read. It will then load the relevant info in memory for processing. If the info is too large, it will default to writing it to disk and reading from disk to perform the comparison. You want to avoid disk reads at all costs as they are inefficient, slow, repetitive and can sometimes be flat-out wrong under specific circumstances.
When MySQL finds an index that is possible to be used, it will load the index table instead. An index table is a hash table between memory location and the value of the index. So, for instance, the index table for a primary key looks like this:
id location
1 0 bytes in
2 17 bytes in
3 34 bytes in
This is extremely efficient as even very large index tables can fit in tiny amounts of memory.
Why am I talking about indices? Because by using RAND(), you are preventing MySQL from using them. ORDER BY RAND() forces MySQL to create a new random value for each row. This requires MySQL to copy all your table data in what is called a temporary table, and to add a new field with the RAND() value. This table will be too big to store in memory, so it will be stored to disk.
When you tell MySQL to ORDER BY RAND(), and the table is created, MySQL will then compare every single row by pairs (MySQL sorting uses quicksort). Since the rows are too big, you're looking at quite a few disk reads for this operation. When it is done, it returns, and you get your data -at a huge cost.
There are plenty of ways to prevent this massive overhead SNAFU. One of them is to select ID from RAND() to maximum index and limit by 1. This does not require the creation of an extra field. There are plenty of similar Stack questions.
It has already been explained why ORDER BY RAND() should be avoided, so I simply provide a way to do it with some faster queries.
First get a random number based on your table size:
SELECT FLOOR(RAND()*COUNT(*)) FROM first_names
Second use the random number in a limit
SELECT * FROM first_names $pos,1
Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to combine the two queries into one.
Also you can do a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM first_names, store the number, and generate random $pos in PHP as many times as you like.
You should switch to using either mysqli or pdo if your host supports it but something like this should work. You will have to determine what you want to do if you don't have a enough record in either of the tables though (array_pad or wrap the indexes and restart)
function getRandomNames($qty){
$qty = (int)$qty;
$fnames = array();
$lnames = array();
$address = array();
$sel =mysql_query("SELECT givenname FROM first_names order by rand() LIMIT ".$qty);
while ($rec = mysql_fetch_array($sel)){$fnames[] = $rec[0]; }
$sel =mysql_query("SELECT surname FROM last_name order by rand() LIMIT ".$qty);
while ($rec = mysql_fetch_array($sel)){ $lnames[] = $rec[0]; }
$sel =mysql_query("SELECT streetaddress FROM user_addresss order by rand() LIMIT ".$qty);
while ($rec = mysql_fetch_array($sel)){ $address[] = $rec[0]; }
// lets stitch the results together
$results = array();
for($x = 0; $x < $qty; $x++){
$results[] = array("given_name"=>$fnames[$x], "surname"=>$lnames[$x], "streetaddress"=>$address[$x]);
}
return $results;
}
Hope this helps
UPDATE
Based on Sébastien Renauld's answer a more complete solution may be to structure the queries more like
"SELECT givenname from first_names where id in (select id from first_names order by rand() limit ".$qty.")";
I have a table with roughly 1 million rows. I'm doing a simple program that prints out one field from each row. However, when I started using mysql_pconnect and mysql_query the query would take a long time, I am assuming the query needs to finish before I can print out even the first row. Is there a way to process the data a bit at a time?
--Edited--
I am not looking to retrieve a small set of the data, I'm looking for a way to process the data a chunk at a time (say fetch 10 rows, print 10 rows, fetch 10 rows, print 10 rows etc etc) rather than wait for the query to retrieve 1 million rows (who knows how long) and then start the printing.
Printing one million fields will take some time. Retrieving one million records will take some time. Time adds up.
Have you profiled your code? I'm not sure using limit would make such a drastic difference in this case.
Doing something like this
while ($row = mysql_fetch_object($res)) {
echo $row->field."\n";
}
outputs one record at a time. It does not wait for the whole resultset to be returned.
If you are dealing with a browser you will need something more.
Such as this
ob_start();
$i = 0;
while ($row = mysql_fetch_object($res)) {
echo $row->field."\n";
if (($i++ % 1000) == 0) {
ob_flush();
}
}
ob_end_flush();
Do you really want to print one million fields?
The customary solution is to use some kind of output pagination in your web application, showing only part of the result. On SELECT queries you can use the LIMIT keyword to return only part of the data. This is basic SQL stuff, really. Example:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE (some conditions) LIMIT 40,20
shows 20 entries, starting from the 40th (off by one mistakes on my part may be possible).
It may be necessary to use ORDER BY along with LIMIT to prevent the ordering from randomly changing under your feet between requests.
This is commonly needed for pagination. You can use the limit keyword in your select query. Search for limit here:
The LIMIT clause can be used to constrain the number of rows returned by the SELECT statement. LIMIT takes one or two numeric arguments, which must both be nonnegative integer constants (except when using prepared statements).
With two arguments, the first argument specifies the offset of the first row to return, and the second specifies the maximum number of rows to return. The offset of the initial row is 0 (not 1):
SELECT * FROM tbl LIMIT 5,10; # Retrieve rows 6-15
To retrieve all rows from a certain offset up to the end of the result set, you can use some large number for the second parameter. This statement retrieves all rows from the 96th row to the last:
SELECT * FROM tbl LIMIT 95,18446744073709551615;
With one argument, the value specifies the number of rows to return from the beginning of the result set:
SELECT * FROM tbl LIMIT 5; # Retrieve first 5 rows
In other words, LIMIT row_count is equivalent to LIMIT 0, row_count.
You might be able to use
Mysqli::use_result
combined with a flush to output the data set to the browser. I know flush can be used to output data to the browser at an incremental state as I have used it before to do just that, however I am not sure if mysqli::use_result is the correct function to retrieve incomplete result sets.
This is how I do something like that in Oracle. I'm not sure how it would cross over:
declare
my_counter integer := 0;
begin
for cur in (
select id from table
) loop
begin
-- do whatever your trying to do
update table set name = 'steve' where id = cur.id;
my_counter := my_counter + 1;
if my_counter > 500 then
my_counter := 0;
commit;
end if;
end;
end loop;
commit;
end;
An example using the basic mysql driver.
define( 'CHUNK_SIZE', 500 );
$result = mysql_query( 'select count(*) as num from `table`' );
$row = mysql_fetch_assoc( $result );
$totalRecords = (int)$row['num'];
$offsets = ceil( $totalRecords / CHUNK_SIZE );
for ( $i = 0; $i < $offsets; $i++ )
{
$result = mysql_query( "select * from `table` limit " . CHUNK_SIZE . " offset " . ( $i * CHUNK_SIZE ) );
while ( $row = mysql_fetch_assoc( $result ) )
{
// your per-row operations here
}
unset( $result, $row );
}
This will iterate over your entire row volume, but do so only 500 rows at a time to keep memory usage down.
It sounds like you're hitting the limits of various buffer sizes within the mysql server... Some methods you could do would be to specify the field you want in the SQL statement to reduce this buffer size, or play around with the various admin settings.
OR, you can use a pagination like method but have it output all on one page...
(pseudocode)
function q($part) {
$off = $part*SIZE_OF_PARTITIONS;
$size = SIZE_OF_PARTITIONS;
return( execute_and_return_sql('SELECT `field` FROM `table` LIMIT $off, $size'));
}
$ii = 0;
while ($elements = q($ii)) {
print_fields($elements);
$ii++;
}
Use mysql_unbuffered_query() or if using PDO make sure PDO::MYSQL_ATTR_USE_BUFFERED_QUERY is false.
Also see this similar question.
Edit: and as others have said, you may wish to combine this with flushing your output buffer after each batch of processing, depending on your circumstances.
I am writing an algorithm to generate combinations of items from a database. They need to be unique permutations (i.e. 145, 156 == 156, 145). The problem I am running into is how to keep track of previous combinations so that i do not end up with 145, 156 and 156, 145.
Currently I am adding them to an array with index of id1_id2... (sorted so id's are always be lowest to highest) and setting the value equal to 1 when a combo is generated so that i can check if $combos[$index] exists or not. If it does not exist, create it. (there are other criteria to weed out EVERY permutation, but they are irrelevant) Once these combinations are generated, they are being stored in a table in MySQL.
The problem I am running into is that with the test items i'm using (about 85) I cannot generate a combinations with more than 3 items (id1_id2_id3) without running out of memory as the number of combinations is MASSIVE and the $combos array takes up more than the 64M i am allotted in PHP memory.
Is there a way that I can do this a) without keeping track of previous combos or b) skipping the $combos array route and only adding a unique row to mysql and let mysql handle the duplicate checking.
Here is some pseudo code for reference:
$items = array(/*85 items*/);
foreach ($items as $item1){
generate(array($item1));
foreach($items as $item2){
generate(array($item1, $item2));
}
}
}
function generate($items_arary){
$temp_array = array();
foreach ($items_array as $item){
$temp_array[] = $item['id'];
}
sort($temp_array);
$index = implode("_", $temp_array);
if (!$combos[$index]){
$combos[$index] = 1;
/* some code to generate query to store to db */
}
}
the query ends up looking like this: (the database is truncated at beginning of script)
INSERT INTO `combos` (combo_id, more_info) VALUES ('id1_id2', 'Item Name');
In the process of writing this question, I thought of a possible solution: Making sure id3 > id2 > id1. Would this be a viable solution to remove the need for $combos?
The reason I asked about the before data structure is because you could do something like this:
$sql = "SELECT id FROM test_a";
$result = mysql_query($sql);
while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) {
$item1 = $row['id'];
$sql2 = "SELECT id FROM test_a";
$result2 = mysql_query($sql2);
while ($row2 = mysql_fetch_array($result2)) {
$item2 = $row2['id'];
$combo1 = $item1 . "_" . $item2;
$combo2 = $item2 . "_" . $item1;
$sql3 = "SELECT * FROM combos WHERE combo_id = '$combo1' OR combo_id = '$combo2'";
$result3 = mysql_query($sql3);
if (mysql_num_rows($result3) == 0) {
$sql4 = "INSERT INTO combos (combo_id, more_info) VALUES ('$combo1','Item Name')";
$result4 = mysql_query($sql4);
}
}
}
When table test_a has the values 1,2,3, and 4 this script inserts:
1_1
1_2
1_3
1_4
2_2
2_3
2_4
3_3
3_4
4_4
This shouldn't have any memory problems. Although if you have a huge database you may run into a issue with php's time limit
Here is the same concept as my other answer but in an all SQL format.
INSERT INTO combos (combo_id, more_info)
SELECT CONCAT_WS("_",t1.id,t2.id), "item_name"
FROM test_a t1, test_a t2
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM combos WHERE combo_id = CONCAT_WS("_",t1.id,t2.id))
AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM combos WHERE combo_id = CONCAT_WS("_",t2.id,t1.id))
Assuming you can get item_name from the db somewhere, this will probably be your fastest and least memory intensive solution. I am running a test on around 1000 ids at the moment. I'll update this when it finishes.
Yes. You can store and use the lexicographical index of the combination to reconstruct/iterate them, or Grey Codes if you need to iterate all of them.
Take a look at: "Algorithm 515: Generation of a Vector from the Lexicographical Index"; Buckles, B. P., and Lybanon, M. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1977.
I've translated into C here, and describe more here.
If you don't need to enforce referential integrity automatically (which you're not if you use string concatenation), use one table for the 85 items, give them each an index (0-84), and use a second table to represent a given set of items, using a numeric datatype where each bit position in the number represents one item. (e.g. 000001101 represents items 0, 2, and 3)
For items more than 64 you may have to split them up into more than one field, or use a BLOB or a string (gack!).
If you use this as a primary key field, you can enforce non-duplicates.
In TSQL you can use a recursive CTE, Can''t remember where I got it, but pretty sweet. Note MYSQL doesn't use "With" option, so it won't work in MySQL
WITH Numbers(N) AS (
SELECT N
FROM ( VALUES(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)) Numbers(N)),
Recur(N,Combination) AS (
SELECT N, CAST(N AS VARCHAR(20))
FROM Numbers
UNION ALL
SELECT n.N,CAST(r.Combination + ',' + CAST(n.N AS VARCHAR(10)) AS VARCHAR(20))
FROM Recur r
INNER JOIN Numbers n ON n.N > r.N)
select Combination
from RECUR
ORDER BY LEN(Combination),Combination;
to increase memory change
memory_limit = 512M in your php.ini
or
ini_set('memory_limit', '512M') in your php script
or
php_value memory_limit 512M in your .htaccess