Ranking players in assassins game from mysql table - php

I am trying to figure out how to calculate the rankings for a game of assassins that I am running, I wish to rank people by kills primarily, and then by time of kills (those who got kills before the others are ranked higher) and then last the people that have been assassinated already ranked below those that are alive.
My table for logging assassinations looks like this:
mysql> describe assassinations;
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| assassin | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| target | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| timestamp | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| ver | enum('assassin','target','both','none') | NO | | none | |
| confirmed | bit(1) | NO | | b'0' | |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
I am thinking that there must be a way to order the mysql results just like the way I want it to be ranked, but I don't know how. I got as far as trying to get the most common assassin value :(. I am using PHP with MySQL so a PHP solution would also work. (Please note, ignore the "confirmed" field, but "ver" must be both for it to be a valid kill).
Any help would be much appreciated. :)

Use COUNT and MIN to get the number of kills and the time of the first kill. And an EXISTS subquery to tell if the assassin has already been killed. Then you can use all these values in the ORDER BY clause to rank the players.
SELECT a1.assassin, COUNT(*) AS kills, MIN(timestamp) AS killtime,
EXISTS (SELECT * FROM assassinations AS a2
WHERE a2.target = a1.assassin) AS killed
FROM assassins AS a1
WHERE ver = 'both'
GROUP BY assassin
ORDER BY kills DESC, killtime ASC, killed ASC

Related

What is causing this memory leak when (inner) joining this table?

I have SQL that in my head, would and should run in under 1 second:
SELECT mem.`epid`,
mem.`model_id`,
em.`UKM_Make`,
em.`UKM_Model`,
em.`UKM_CCM`,
em.`UKM_Submodel`,
em.`Year`,
em.`UKM_StreetName`,
f.`fit_part_number`
FROM `table_one` AS mem
INNER JOIN `table_two` em ON mem.`epid` = em.`ePID`
INNER JOIN `table_three` f ON `mem`.`model_id` = f.`fit_model_id`
LIMIT 1;
When I run in the terminal this SQL executes in 16 seconds. However, if I remove the line:
INNER JOIN `table_three` f ON `mem`.`model_id` = f.`fit_model_id`
then it executes in 0.03 seconds. Unfortunately for me, I'm not to sure how to debug MYSQL performance issues. This causes my PHP script to run out of memory trying to execute the query.
Here are my table structures:
table_one
+----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| epid | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| model_id | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
+----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
table_two
+----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| ePID | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| UKM_Make | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| UKM_Model | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| UKM_CCM | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| UKM_Submodel | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| Year | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| UKM_StreetName | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| Vehicle Type | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
+----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
table_three
+-----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| fit_fitment_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| fit_part_number | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| fit_model_id | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| fit_year_start | varchar(4) | YES | | NULL | |
| fit_year_end | varchar(4) | YES | | NULL | |
+-----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
The above is output from describe $table_name
Is there anything that I'm obviously missing and if not, how can I try to find out why including table_three causes such a slow response time?
EDIT ONE:
After the indexing suggestion (used CREATE INDEX fit_model ON table_three (fit_model_id), it performs the query in 0.00 seconds (in MYSQL). Removing the limit, is still running from after doing the suggestion ... so not quite there. Anton's suggestion about using EXPLAIN I used it and got this output:
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+-----------+---------+----------------------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+-----------+---------+----------------------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | mem | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 5587 | Using where |
| 1 | SIMPLE | f | ref | fit_model | fit_model | 5 | mastern.mem.model_id | 14 | |
| 1 | SIMPLE | em | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 36773 | Using where; Using join buffer (flat, BNL join) |
+------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+-----------+---------+----------------------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
EDIT TWO
I've added a Foreign Key based on suggestions using the below query:
ALTER TABLE `table_one`
ADD CONSTRAINT `model_id_fk_tbl_three`
FOREIGN KEY (`model_id`)
REFERENCES `table_three` (`fit_model_id`)
MYSQL is still executing the command - there are a lot of rows, so half-expecting this behaviour. With PHP I can break up the query and build my array like that, so I guess that possibly solves the issue - thought is there anything more I can do to try and reduce execution time?
Based on everyone's comments etc. I managed to perform a few things that made my query run a hell of a lot quicker and not crash my script.
1) Indexes
I created an index on my table_three for the field fit_model_id:
CREATE INDEX fit_model ON `table_three` (`fit_model_id`);
This made my LIMIT 1 query go from 16 seconds to 0.03 seconds execution time (in MYSQL CLI).
However, 100 rows or so would still take a lot longer than I thought.
2) Foreign Keys
I created a foreign key that linked table_one.model_id = table_three.fit_model_id using the below query:
ALTER TABLE `table_one`
ADD CONSTRAINT `model_id_fk_tbl_three`
FOREIGN KEY (`model_id`)
REFERENCES `table_three` (`fit_model_id`)
This definitely helped, but still felt like more could be done.
3) OPTIMIZE TABLE
I then used OPTIMIZE TABLE on these tables:
table_one
table_three
This then made my script work and my query fast as ever. However, the issue I had was a large data set, so I let, the query run in MYSQL CLI whilst increasing the LIMIT by 1000 each script run time to help the indexing process, got all the way to 30K rows before it started crashing.
CLI took 31 minutes and 8 seconds to complete. So I did this:
31 x 60 = 1860
1860 + 8 = 1868
1868 / 448476 = 0.0042
So each row took 0.0042 seconds to complete - which is fast enough in my eyes.
Thanks to everyone for commenting and helping me debug and fix the issue :)
Based on comments correct answer is as follows:
In case of long execution of select statement add EXPLAIN statement before SELECT
Check whether possible_keys are empty in subqueries for specific tables.
Add FOREIGN KEYs for tables found in step 2. In case of vast table it's recommended to adjust MAX_EXECUTION_TIME variable (can be done for single query)
In case of massive insert/update/delete operations OPTIMIZE TABLE can adjust performance also.

How to efficiently calculate averages from a big table?

I have a table called ratings with the following fields:
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| rating_id | bigint(20) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| user_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| movie_id | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| rating | float | NO | | NULL | |
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Indexes on this table:
+---------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+---------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| ratings | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | rating_id | A | 100076 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| ratings | 0 | user_id | 1 | user_id | A | 564 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| ratings | 0 | user_id | 2 | movie_id | A | 100092 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
+---------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
I have another table called movie_average_ratings which has the following fields:
+----------------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| movie_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| average_rating | float | NO | | NULL | |
+----------------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
As it is obvious by this point I want to calculate the average rating of movies from ratings table and update the movie_average_ratingstable. I tried the following SQL query.
UPDATE movie_average_ratings
SET average_rating = (SELECT AVG(rating)
FROM ratings
WHERE ratings.movie_id = movie_average_ratings.movie_id);
Currently, there are around 10,000 movie records and 100,000 rating records and I get Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction error. The number of records can grow significantly so I don't think increase timeout is a good solution.
So, how can I write 'scalable' query to acheive this? Is iterating the movie_average_ratings table records and calculate averages individually the most efficient solution to this?
Without an explain, it's hard to be clear on what's holding you up. It's also not clear that you will get a performance improvement by storing this aggregated data as a denormalized table - if the query to calculate the ratings executes in 0.04 seconds, it's unlikely querying your denormalized table will be much faster.
In general, I recommend only denormalizing if you know you have a performance problem.
But that's not the question.
I would do the following:
delete from movie_average_ratings;
insert into movie_average_ratings
Select movie_ID, avg(rating)
from ratings
group by movie_id;
I just found something in another post:
What is happening is, some other thread is holding a record lock on
some record (you're updating every record in the table!) for too long,
and your thread is being timed out.
This means that some of your records are locked you can force unlock them in the console:
1) Enter MySQL mysql -u your_user -p
2) Let's see the list of locked tables mysql> show open tables where in_use>0;
3) Let's see the list of the current processes, one of them is locking
your table(s) mysql> show processlist;
4) Kill one of these processes mysql> kill put_process_id_here;
You could redesign the movie_average_ratings table to
movie_id (int)
sum_of_ratings (int)
num_of_ratings (int)
Then, if a new rating is added you can add it to movie_average_ratings and calculate the average if needed

MySQL is not correctly selecting rows (sometimes)

This is an update to this question, wherein I was casting around trying to work out what on earth was going on:
MySQL sometimes erroneously returns 0 for count(*)
I ended up accepting an answer there because it did answer the question I posed ("why might this happen") even though it didn't answer the question I really wanted to know about ("why is this happening to me"). But I've managed to narrow things down a little bit on the latter question, and think I can definitively say that something is wrong in a way that I don't understand and have never seen before.
The issue has been really difficult to debug because, for reasons beyond my comprehension, logging in to the database automagically fixes it. However, today I managed to trigger the problematic state while having an open MySQL session in a terminal. Here are some queries and the subsequent responses taken from that session:
First, this is my table layout:
mysql> describe forum_posts;
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| post_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| thread_id | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| forum_id | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| user_id | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| moderator | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| message | mediumtext | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| date | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| edited | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| deleted | tinyint(1) | YES | MUL | 0 | |
| bbcode | tinyint(1) | NO | | 1 | |
+-----------+------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
10 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Now, lets look at how many posts there are in a given forum thread:
mysql> SELECT count(post_id) as num FROM `forum_posts` where thread_id=5243;
+-----+
| num |
+-----+
| 195 |
+-----+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
OK, but I only want forum posts that don't have the deleted flag set:
mysql> SELECT count(post_id) as num FROM `forum_posts` where thread_id=5243 and deleted=0;
+-----+
| num |
+-----+
| 0 |
+-----+
1 row in set (0.06 sec)
mysql> select post_id,deleted from forum_posts where thread_id=5243 and deleted=0;
Empty set (0.06 sec)
OK, lets just double-make-sure that they aren't actually all deleted:
mysql> select post_id,deleted from forum_posts where thread_id=5243;
+---------+---------+
| post_id | deleted |
+---------+---------+
| 104081 | 0 |
| 104082 | 0 |
[snip]
| 121162 | 0 |
| 121594 | 0 |
+---------+---------+
195 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Every row in that table has 'deleted' set to 0, and yet adding and deleted=0 to the query yields no results. Until I open a new session by logging in to MySQL again from a terminal window, after which I can once again properly select rows where 'deleted' is 0.
What on earth?
UPDATES:
#miken32 in the comments below suggested I try an EXPLAIN SELECT ..., so:
mysql> explain select post_id,deleted from forum_posts where thread_id='5243' and deleted=0;
+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------+------+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------+------+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | forum_posts | index_merge | thread_id,deleted | thread_id,deleted | 5,2 | NULL | 97 | Using intersect(thread_id,deleted); Using where; Using index |
+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------+------+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Based on the comment that using FORCE KEY alters the result from the query, it is very likely that we are dealing with the merge optimizer bug. EXPLAIN of the original query shows the optimization is done by selecting from the deleted key, then from the post_id key, then merging the results. When we force to bypass that code, the problem goes away.
The steps from the point:
try it on the same data with the most recent 5.6 version of MySQL
if the issue reproduces, try to isolate it to the most minimal test case, visit http://bugs.mysql.com/ and report the bug
Exorcise the daemons and ghosts! Add this index to avoid any "merge" bug:
INDEX(deleted, thread_id) and DROP the key on just deleted
An index on a flag is almost always useless. This time it was worse than useless.
This wil be cheaper, faster, and safer than FORCE INDEX.

SELECT id FROM table WHERE id=$_GET['id'] AND user1=$user OR user2=$user

I'm trying to build a similar facebook style messaging system (conversations).
This is the conversation table.
DESCRIBE conversation;
+----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| c_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| user_one | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| user_two | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| ip | varchar(30) | NO | | NULL | |
| time | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
+----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Now before the user can read a conversation, I need to check if the conversation (c_id) exists, and if the user is the owner of the given conversation id. What is the best possible way to write this query?
Example of what I have, which is not working:
$cid = intval($_GET['cid']);
$conv = $this->db->fetchRow('SELECT c_id FROM `conversation` WHERE
user_one=? OR
user_two=? AND
c_id=?',
array($this->user->id, $this->user->id, $cid));
if ($conv) {
// get the conversation replies etc..
}
I see a couple of problems.
One is that you seem to have overlooked that AND has a higher precedence than OR. So the logic of your condition works as if you had written it this way:
WHERE user_one=? OR (user_two=? AND c_id=?)
Whereas I would guess that you intended the logic to work this way:
WHERE (user_one=? OR user_two=?) AND c_id=?
But if that's how you intended it to work, I wonder why you need to search for the user id's at all, since the condition on c_id=? will select only one row (or zero rows if there's no match), because it's searching for one specific primary key value.

Complex sorting on MySQL database

I'm facing the following situation.
We've got an CMS with an entity with translations. These translations are stored in a different table with a one-to-many relationship. For example newsarticles and newsarticle_translations. The amount of available languages is dynamically determined by the same CMS.
When entering a new newsarticle the editor is required to enter at least one translation, which one of the available languages he chooses is up to him.
In the newsarticle overview in our CMS we would like to show a column with the (translated) article title, but since none of the languages are mandatory (one of them is mandatory but i don't know which one) i don't really know how to construct my mysql query to select a title for each newsarticle, regardless of the entered language.
And to make it all a little harder, our manager asked for the possibilty to also be able to sort on title, so fetching the translations in a separate query is ruled out as far as i know.
Anyone has an idea on how to solve this in the most efficient way?
Here are my table schema's it it might help
> desc news;
+-----------------+----------------+------+-----+-------------------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------+----------------+------+-----+-------------------+----------------+
| id | int(10) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| category_id | int(1) | YES | | NULL | |
| created | timestamp | NO | | CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | |
| user_id | int(10) | YES | | NULL | |
+-----------------+----------------+------+-----+-------------------+----------------+
> desc news_translations;
+-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| enabled | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| news_id | int(1) unsigned | NO | | NULL | |
| title | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| summary | text | YES | | NULL | |
| body | text | NO | | NULL | |
| language | varchar(2) | NO | | NULL | |
+-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
PS: i've though about subqueries and coalesce() solutions but those seem rather dirty tricks, wondering if something better is know that i'm not thinking of?
This is not a fast approach, but I think it gives you what you want.
Let me know how it works, and we can work on speed next :)
select nt.title
from news n
join news_translations nt on(n.id = nt.news_id)
where nt.title is not null
and nt.language = (
select max(x.language)
from news_translations x
where x.title is not null
and x.new_id = nt.news_id)
order
by nt.title;
Assuming I've read your problem aright, you want to get a list of titles for articles, preferring the "required" language? A query for that might go along the lines of ...
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT nt.`title`, nt.news_id
FROM news n
INNER JOIN news_translations nt ON (n.id = nt.news_id)
WHERE title != ''
ORDER BY
CASE
WHEN nt.language = 'en' THEN 3
WHEN nt.language = 'jp' THEN 2
WHEN nt.language = 'de' THEN 1
ELSE 0 END DESC
) AS t1
GROUP BY `news_id`
This example prefers a title in English (en) if available, Japanese (jp) as a second preference, and German (de) as a third, but will display the first 'other' entry if none of the requested languages are available.

Categories