Mysql query optimization Multi Column Index solves this slowness? - php

+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| type | enum('Website','Facebook','Twitter','Linkedin','Youtube','SeatGeek','Yahoo') | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| name | varchar(100) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| processing_interface_id | bigint(20) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| processing_interface_table | varchar(100) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| create_time | datetime | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| run_time | datetime | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| completed_time | datetime | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| reserved | int(10) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| params | text | YES | | NULL | |
| params_md5 | varchar(100) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| priority | int(10) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| status | varchar(40) | NO | MUL | none | |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
select * from remote_request use index ( processing_order ) where remote_request.status = 'none' and type = 'Facebook' and reserved = '0' order by priority desc limit 0, 40;
This table receives an extremely large amount of writes and reads. each remote_request ends up being a process, which can spawn anywhere between 0 and 5 other remote_requests depending on the type of request, and what the request does.
The table is currently sitting at about 3.5 Million records, and it goes to a snail pace when the site itself is under heavy load and I have more then 50 or more instances running simultaneously. (REST requests are the purpose of the table just in case you were not sure).
As the table grows it just gets worse and worse. I can clear the processed requests out on a daily basis but ultimatly this is not fixing the problem.
What I need is for this query to always have a very low response ratio.
Here are the current indexes on the table.
+----------------+------------+----------------------------------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | Index_comment |
+----------------+------------+----------------------------------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
| remote_request | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | id | A | 2403351 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | type_index | 1 | type | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_interface_id_index | 1 | processing_interface_id | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_interface_table_index | 1 | processing_interface_table | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | create_time_index | 1 | create_time | A | 160223 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | run_time_index | 1 | run_time | A | 343335 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | completed_time_index | 1 | completed_time | A | 267039 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | reserved_index | 1 | reserved | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | params_md5_index | 1 | params_md5 | A | 2403351 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | priority_index | 1 | priority | A | 716 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | status_index | 1 | status | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | name_index | 1 | name | A | 18 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_order | 1 | priority | A | 200 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_order | 2 | status | A | 200 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_order | 3 | type | A | 200 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | |
| remote_request | 1 | processing_order | 4 | reserved | A | 200 | NULL | NULL | YES | BTREE | | |
+----------------+------------+----------------------------------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+---------------+
Any idea how i solve this? Is it not possible to make some sort of complicated index that would automatic order them with priority, then take the first 40 that match the 'Facebook' type? It currently is scanning more then 500k rows of the table before it returns a result which is grossly inefficient.
Some other version of the query that I have been tinkering with are:
select * from remote_request use index ( type_index,status_index,reserved_index,priority_index ) where remote_request.status = 'none' and type = 'Facebook' and reserv ed = '0' order by priority desc limit 0, 40
It would be amazing if we could get the rows scanned to under 1000 rows depending on just how many types of requests enter the table.
Thanks in advance, this might be a real nutcracker for most except the most experienced mysql experts?

Your four-column index has the right columns, but in the wrong order.
You want the index to first look up matching rows, which you do by three columns. You are looking up by three equality conditions, so you know that once the index finds the set of matching rows, the order of these rows is basically a tie with respect to those first three columns. So to resolve the tie, add as the fourth column the column by which you wanted to sort.
If you do that, then the ORDER BY becomes a no-op, because the query can just read the rows in the order they are stored in the index.
So I would create the following index:
CREATE INDEX processing_order2 ON remote_request
(status, type, reserved, priority);
There's probably not too much significance to the order of the first three columns, since they're all in equality terms combined with AND. But the priority column belongs at the end.
You may also like to read my presentation How to Design Indexes, Really.
By the way, using USE INDEX() shouldn't be necessary if you have the right index, MySQL's optimizer will choose it automatically most of the time. But USE INDEX() can block the optimizer from considering a new index that you create, so it becomes a disadvantage for code maintenance.

This isn't a complete answer but it was too long for a comment:
Are you actually searching on all of those indexes? If not get rid of some. Extra indexes slow down writes.
Secondly use EXPLAIN on your query and don't specify an index when you do. See how MySQL wants to process it rather than forcing an option (Generally it does the right thing).
Finally sorting is likely what hurts you the most. If you don't sort it probably gets the records pretty quickly. It has to scan and sort every row that meets your criteria before it can return the top 40.
Options:
Try creating a VIEW (not as familiar with VIEWS but it might work)
Split this table into smaller tables
use a third party tool such as
Sphinx or Lucene to create specialized indexes to search on. (I've
used Sphinx for something like this before. You can find it at
http://sphinxsearch.com/).
Or look into using a NoSQL solution where you can use a Map function to do it.
Edit I read a bit about using VIEW and I don't think it will help you in your case because you have such a large table. See the answer in this thread: Using MySQL views to increase performance

Related

Laravel eloquent not getting the results

I have a laravel project and I don't see where is the bug here.
I have a products table with a "low_stock_warning" integer field and a "units_stock" integer field.
I want to get the products with a "units_stock" less than "low_stock_warning", so I have
$stock_warning = Product::whereRaw('units_stock <= low_stock_warning')
->select('id')
->get();
The result mysql is:
select `id` from `products` where units_stock <= low_stock_warning
If I execute it in my database directly I get one product. Ok, but Eloquent tells me that $stock_warning is an empty array...
What I'm missing here ?
Thanks!
EDIT 1:
I've tried with:
$stock_warning = Product::whereColumn('units_stock', '<=', 'low_stock_warning')->pluck('id');
print_r($stock_warning);
And the result is:
Illuminate\Support\Collection Object ( [items:protected] => Array ( ) )
EDIT 2:
This is the database structure:
--------------
DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT
--------------
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| productdescriptioneng | text | YES | | NULL | |
| units_stock | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| low_stock_warning | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
--------------
PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT
--------------
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| productdescriptioneng | text | YES | | NULL | |
| units_stock | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| low_stock_warning | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
+-----------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Development:
- Server version: 5.7.21 MySQL Community Server (GPL)
SHOW ENGINES;
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
| Engine | Support | Comment | Transactions | XA | Savepoints |
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
| MEMORY | YES | Hash based, stored in memory, useful for temporary tables | NO | NO | NO |
| MRG_MYISAM | YES | Collection of identical MyISAM tables | NO | NO | NO |
| CSV | YES | CSV storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| BLACKHOLE | YES | /dev/null storage engine (anything you write to it disappears) | NO | NO | NO |
| MyISAM | YES | MyISAM storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA | YES | Performance Schema | NO | NO | NO |
| ARCHIVE | YES | Archive storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| InnoDB | DEFAULT | Supports transactions, row-level locking, and foreign keys | YES | YES | YES |
| FEDERATED | NO | Federated MySQL storage engine | NULL | NULL | NULL |
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
Production:
- Server version: 5.7.21-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 (Ubuntu)
SHOW ENGINES;
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
| Engine | Support | Comment | Transactions | XA | Savepoints |
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
| MyISAM | YES | MyISAM storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| MRG_MYISAM | YES | Collection of identical MyISAM tables | NO | NO | NO |
| CSV | YES | CSV storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| BLACKHOLE | YES | /dev/null storage engine (anything you write to it disappears) | NO | NO | NO |
| PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA | YES | Performance Schema | NO | NO | NO |
| InnoDB | DEFAULT | Supports transactions, row-level locking, and foreign keys | YES | YES | YES |
| ARCHIVE | YES | Archive storage engine | NO | NO | NO |
| MEMORY | YES | Hash based, stored in memory, useful for temporary tables | NO | NO | NO |
| FEDERATED | NO | Federated MySQL storage engine | NULL | NULL | NULL |
+--------------------+---------+----------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+------+------------+
Use the whereColumn() method:
Product::whereColumn('units_stock', '<=', 'low_stock_warning')->pluck('id')
Verify if the product from DB is not soft deleted (deleted_at is not null);
if it is soft deleted, but you need them use this:
Product::whereColumn('units_stock', '<=', 'low_stock_warning')->withTrashed()->pluck('id');
You can use WhereColumn and orWhereColumn to achieve.
Product::whereColumn('units_stock', '<', 'low_stock_warning')
orWhereColumn('units_stock', '=', 'low_stock_warning')
->pluck('id');
Hope this helps

How can a simple MySQL insert/update be slower than an external web request?

Due to some performance issues I've been optimizing several SQL queries and adding indexes to certain tables/columns to speed up things.
Been running some time tests using microtime() in PHP (looping the queries a couple hundred times and calling RESET QUERY CACHE in each loop). I'm somewhat baffled by the results from one of the functions that does 3 things:
Inserts a row in a sessions table (InnoDB).
Updates a row in a users table (InnoDB).
Sends session ID to remote server which inserts the session ID in a session table of it's own (MongoDB).
Step 1. generally takes 30 - 40 ms, step 2. 20 - 30 ms and step 3. 7 - 20 ms.
I've tried looking up some expected query times for MySQL, but haven't found anything useful, so I don't know what to expect. Having said that, those query times seem somewhat high and I would definite not expect the web request to finish faster than the MySQL queries to the local database.
Any idea if those query times are reasonable compared to the web request?
SQL/system information
Both servers (the remote and the one with the MySQL database) are virtual servers running on the same physical server with shared storage (multiple SSD raid destup). The remote server has a single CPU and 2 GB RAM assigned, the MySQL server has 8 CPUs and 32 GB RAM assigned. Both servers are on the same LAN.
The sessions insert query:
INSERT INTO sessions (
session_id,
user_id,
application,
machine_id,
user_agent,
ip,
method,
created,
last_active,
expires
)
VALUES (
string, // session_id
int, // user_id
string, // application
string, // machine_id
string, // user_agent
string, // ip
string, // method
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, // created
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, // last_active
NULL / FROM_UNIXTIME([PHP timestamp]) // expires
)
The sessions table (contains ~500'000 rows);
+-------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| sessions_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| session_id | char(32) | NO | UNI | NULL | |
| user_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| application | varchar(128) | NO | | NULL | |
| machine_id | varchar(36) | NO | | NULL | |
| user_agent | varchar(1024) | NO | | NULL | |
| ip | varchar(15) | NO | | NULL | |
| method | varchar(20) | NO | | NULL | |
| created | datetime | NO | | NULL | |
| last_active | datetime | NO | | NULL | |
| expires | datetime | YES | MUL | NULL | |
+-------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
The users update query:
UPDATE users
SET last_active = string // For example '2016-01-01 00:00:00'
WHERE user_id = int
The users table (contains ~200'000 rows):
+------------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| user_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| username | varchar(64) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| first_name | varchar(256) | NO | | NULL | |
| last_name | varchar(256) | NO | | NULL | |
| info | varchar(512) | NO | | NULL | |
| address1 | varchar(512) | NO | | NULL | |
| address2 | varchar(512) | NO | | NULL | |
| city | varchar(256) | NO | | NULL | |
| zip_code | varchar(128) | NO | | NULL | |
| state | varchar(256) | NO | | NULL | |
| country | varchar(128) | NO | | NULL | |
| locale | varchar(5) | NO | | NULL | |
| phone | varchar(128) | NO | | NULL | |
| email | varchar(256) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| password | char(60) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| permissions | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| created | datetime | YES | | NULL | |
| last_active | datetime | YES | | NULL | |
+------------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
It seems that the problem was simply our MySQL settings (they were all default).
I ran a MySQL profile on the users update query and found that the step query end was taking up the majority of the time spent executing the query.
Googling that led me to https://stackoverflow.com/a/12446986/736247 - rather than using all the suggested values directly (which cannot be recommended, because some of them can have adverse effects on data integrity) I found some more info, including this page on Percona: https://www.percona.com/blog/2013/09/20/innodb-performance-optimization-basics-updated/.
InnoDB Startup Options and System Variables was also useful: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/innodb-parameters.html was also useful.
I ended up setting new values for the following settings:
innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit
innodb_flush_method
innodb_buffer_pool_size
innodb_buffer_pool_instances
innodb_log_file_size
This resulted in significantly shorter query times (measured in the same way as I did in the question):
Insert a row in a sessions table: ~8 ms (down from 30-40 ms).
Update a row in a users table: ~2.5 ms (down from 20-30 ms).

Laravel 5 custom database sessions?

I'm new to Laravel (using 5.1). I have my entire DB schema (MySQL 5.5) diagrammed and have begin implementing it. The problem is, I need to adapt Laravel to use my sessions table. After making a new migration to bring the table more in line with what Laravel expects, I have this table:
+---------------+---------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------+---------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| id_hash | varchar(255) | NO | UNI | NULL | |
| user_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| created_at | int(10) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| updated_at | int(10) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| expires_at | int(10) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| last_activity | int(10) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |
| platform | enum('d','p','t','b','a','i','w','k') | NO | | d | |
| ip_address | varchar(40) | NO | | 0.0.0.0 | |
| payload | text | NO | | NULL | |
| user_agent | text | NO | | NULL | |
+---------------+---------------------------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
The main thing I need to accomplish is to have id as an auto-incrementing integer (because my Session model has relationships to other models) and use id_hash as the publicly identifying string (I also plan to cut id_hash back to 64), which I think is the token in the payload.
At session creation, id_hash, platform, ip_address, and user_agent will be set, never to change again. After authentication, user_id will be populated, then cleared at logout.
I'm ok with keeping the payload handling as-is.
Is this just a matter of creating a custom class that implements SessionHandlerInterface? What else needs to be in it for handling my extra fields that's not obvious from the session docs?

Mysql trigger or coding in PHP?

I have a table hardware_description:
+------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Computer_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| Emp_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| PC_type | varchar(20) | YES | | NULL | |
| Operating_system | varchar(20) | YES | | NULL | |
| Product_key | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Assign_date | date | YES | | NULL | |
| DVD_ROM | varchar(20) | YES | | NULL | |
| CPU | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| IP_address | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| MAC_address | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Model_name | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Model_number | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Monitor | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Processor | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Product_name | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| RAM | varchar(20) | YES | | NULL | |
| Serial_number | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
| Vendor_id | varchar(30) | YES | | NULL | |
Emp_id is foreign key from employees table.
When I update a particular row, I want the existing data for that row to be saved in another table along with the timestamp of that update action. Now,
a) Shall I use PHP code (PDO transaction) to first grab that row & insert in another table then perform the UPDATE query on that particular row?
b) Use trigger on this table.
Which process is better practice & more efficient? Is there another way of achieving this?
I have not used trigger in my short career so far but I can do it if it is better practice.
If you can do a trigger, it would be a lot better to use that.
The reason for this is that if for some reason you forget to write the PHP code to do this (in some weird situation) - you would have missing, unrelated data - otherwise known as orphaned data, which does not have a corresponding row or set of rows.
Here's the link to the MySQL documentation page for triggers: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-trigger.html

What methods are there for storing the order of items in a database?

I'm creating a portfolio website that has galleries that contain images. I want the user of this portfolio to be able to order the images within a gallery. The problem itself is fairly simple I'm just struggling with deciding on a solution to implement.
There are 2 solutions I've thought of so far:
Simply adding an order column (or priority?) and then querying with an ORDER BY clause on that column. The disadvantage of this being that to change the order of a single image I'd have to update every single image in the gallery.
The second method would be to add 2 nullable columns next and previous that simply store the ID of the next and previous image. This would then mean there would be less data to update when the order was changed; however, it would be much more complex to set up and I'm not entirely sure how I'd actually implement it.
Extra options would be great.
Are those options viable?
Are there better options?
How could / should they be implemented?
The current structure of the two tables in question is the following:
mysql> desc Gallery;
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| title | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
| subtitle | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
| description | varchar(5000) | NO | | NULL | |
| date | datetime | NO | | NULL | |
| isActive | tinyint(1) | NO | | NULL | |
| lastModified | timestamp | NO | | CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | on update CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
mysql> desc Image;
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| galleryId | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| description | varchar(250) | YES | | NULL | |
| path | varchar(250) | NO | | NULL | |
| lastModified | timestamp | NO | | CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | on update CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+
Currently there is no implementation of ordering in any form.
while 1 is a bit ugly you can do:
UPDATE table set order=order+1 where order>='orderValueOfItemYouCareAbout';
this will update all the rest of the images and you wont have to do a ton of leg work.
As bart2puck has said and I stated in the question, option 1 is a little bit ugly; it is however the option I have chosen to go with to simplify the solution all round.
I have added a column (displayOrder int UNSIGNED) to the Image table after path. When I want to re-order a row in the table I simply swap rows around. So, if I have 3 rows:
mysql> SELECT id, galleryId, description, displayOrder FROM Image ORDER BY displayOrder;
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| id | galleryId | description | displayOrder |
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| 271 | 20 | NULL | 1 |
| 270 | 20 | Tracks leading into the ocean... | 2 |
| 278 | 20 | NULL | 3 |
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
If I want to re-order row 278 to appear second rather than third, I'll simply swap it with the second by doing the following:
UPDATE Image SET displayOrder =
CASE displayOrder
WHEN 2 THEN 3
WHEN 3 THEN 2
END
WHERE galleryId = 20
AND displayOrder BETWEEN 2 AND 3;
Resulting in:
mysql> SELECT id, galleryId, description, displayOrder FROM Image ORDER BY displayOrder;
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| id | galleryId | description | displayOrder |
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
| 271 | 20 | NULL | 1 |
| 278 | 20 | NULL | 2 |
| 270 | 20 | Tracks leading into the ocean... | 3 |
+-----+-----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
One possible issue that some people may find is that you can only alter the position by one place with this method, i.e. to move image 278 to appear first I'd have to make it second, then first, otherwise the current first image would appear third.

Categories