I have query that gets 10 random posts , and as you know this is very slow and heavy query, is there any alternatives to submit this query without any slow appearance?
my current rand query :
SELECT * FROM posts ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 10
From MySQL document:
SELECT * FROM tablename ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1
works for small tables, but once the tables grow larger than 300,000 records or so this will be very slow because MySQL will have to process ALL the entries from the table, order them randomly and then return the first row of the ordered result, and this sorting takes long time. Instead you can do it like this (atleast if you have an auto_increment PK):
SELECT MIN(id), MAX(id) FROM tablename;
Fetch the result into $a
//php code
$id=rand($a[0],$a[1]);
SELECT * FROM tablename WHERE id>='$id' LIMIT 1
Related
I have data in MYSQL table where i have to paginate through 4 rows at a time.
To do this I use the command below where i increase X from 0 by 4 until i reach the end of the data.
The command works for X=0 and X=4, when i reach X=8 i get the error #1038 - out of sort memory, i tried increasing it to 256K but same result.
Anybody know how to solve? Im using PHP
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM ((SELECT DISTINCT * FROM table WHERE (scope=0) AND (id='6')) UNION (SELECT DISTINCT * FROM table WHERE (scope=0) AND (id<=1000))) as total ORDER BY timestamp DESC LIMIT X,4
Not an answer, but your query seems to be functionally identical to this:
SELECT columns
, you
, actually
, want
FROM table
WHERE scope = 0
AND id<=1000
ORDER
BY timestamp DESC
LIMIT X,4
I'm trying to make a quiz using mysql and php
I want to fetch questions randomly from the database
I have a truble with rand function
sometimes it seturns no value and returns also duplications
I tried to find a solution on the net but couldn't make it
this is the part of code that generate the problem
$link=mysqli_connect("localhost","root","","database");
$req="SELECT DISTINCT *
FROM `qst_s`
WHERE `id_qst` = ROUND( RAND()*49 ) + 1 AND `level` = '1' LIMIT 40";
$result=mysqli_query($link,$req);
$question=$result->fetch_assoc();
I have 50 questions in my database level 1 by the way
The simplest way of selecting random rows from the MySQL database is to use "ORDER BY RAND()" clause in the query.
SELECT * FROM `table` ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 0,1;
The problem with this method is that it is very slow. The reason for it being so slow is that MySQL creates a temporary table with all the result rows and assigns each one of them a random sorting index. The results are then sorted and returned.
Your query would look like this:
$req="SELECT DISTINCT *
FROM `qst_s`
WHERE `level` = '1'
ORDER BY RAND()
LIMIT 40";
suppose I have a table t and table t has 15000 entries
suppose the query
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000
returns 1000 rows
but then I only want the first 10 rows so I do a LIMIT
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000 LIMIT 10
is it possible to construct a single query in which in addition to returning the 10 rows information with the LIMIT clause above, it also returns the total count of the rows that satisfy the conditions set in the WHERE clause, hence in addition to returning the 10 rows above, it also returns 1000 since there are a total of 1000 rows satisfying the WHERE clause...and have both returned in a single query
Preferred solution
First of all, the found_rows() function is not portable (it is a MySQL extension) and is going to be removed. As user #Zveddochka pointed out, it has already been deprecated in MySQL 8.0.17.
But more importantly, it turns out that if you use proper indexing, then running two queries is actually faster. The SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS directive is achieved through a "virtual scan" that incurs an additional recovery cost. When the query is not indexed, then this cost would be the same of a COUNT(), and therefore running two queries will cost double - i.e., using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS will make things run 50% faster.
But what happens when the query is properly indexed? The guys at Percona checked it out. And it turns out that not only the COUNT() is blazing fast since it only accesses metadata and indexes, and the query without SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS is faster because it doesn't incur any additional cost; the cost of the two queries combined is less than the cost of the enhanced single query:
Results with SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS are following: for each b value it
takes 20-100 sec to execute uncached and 2-5 sec after warmup. Such
difference could be explained by the I/O which required for this query
– mysql accesses all 10k rows this query could produce without LIMIT
clause.
The results are following: it takes 0.01-0.11 sec to run this query
first time and 0.00-0.02 sec for all consecutive runs.
So, as we can see, total time for SELECT+COUNT (0.00-0.15 sec) is much
less than execution time for original query (2-100 sec). Let’s take a
look at EXPLAINs...
So, what to do?
// Run two queries ensuring they satisfy exactly the same conditions
$field1 = "Field1, Field2, blah blah blah";
$field2 = "COUNT(*) AS rows";
$where = "Field5 = 'X' AND Field6 = 'Y' AND blah blah";
$cntQuery = "SELECT {$field2} FROM {$joins} WHERE {$where}";
$rowQuery = "SELECT {$field1} FROM {$joins} WHERE {$where} LIMIT {$limit}";
Now the first query returns the count, the second query returns the actual data.
Old answer (useful just for non-indexed tables)
Don't do this. If you find out this section of the answer works for you better than the section above, it's almost certainly a signal that something else is not optimal in your setup - most likely you're not using the indexes properly, or you need to update your MySQL server, or run an analyze/optimize of the database to update cardinality statistics.
You can, but I think it would be a performance killer.
Your best option would be to use the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS MySQL extension and issue a second query to recover the full number of rows using FOUND_ROWS().
SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000 LIMIT 10;
SELECT FOUND_ROWS();
See e.g http://www.arraystudio.com/as-workshop/mysql-get-total-number-of-rows-when-using-limit.html
Or you could simply run the full query without LIMIT clause, and retrieve only the first ten rows. Then you can use one query as you wanted, and also get the row count through mysql_num_rows(). This is not ideal, but also not so catastrophic for most queries.
If you do this last, though, be very careful to close the query and free its resources: I have found out that retrieving less than the full resultset and forgetting to free the rs handle is one outstanding cause of "metadata locking".
You can try SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS, which can get a count of total records without running the statement again.
SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000 LIMIT 10; -- get records
SELECT FOUND_ROWS(); -- get count
Reference: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/information-functions.html
"is it possible to construct a single query in which in addition to returning the 10 rows information with the LIMIT clause above, it also returns the total count of the rows that satisfy the conditions set in the WHERE clause"
Yes, it is possible to do both in single query, by using windowed function i.e. COUNT(*) OVER()(MySQL 8.0+):
SELECT t.*, COUNT(*) OVER() AS cnt
FROM t
WHERE t.nid <1000
LIMIT 10;
db<>fiddle demo
Sidenote:
LIMIT without explicit ORDER BY is non-deterministic. It could return different results between multiple runs.
There are many things that need discussing.
A LIMIT without an ORDER BY is somewhat unpredictable, hence somewhat meaningless.
But if you add an ORDER BY, it may need to find all the rows, sort them then deliver only the 10 you want.
Or, the ORDER BY may be handled adequately by an INDEX.
Your particular query, if turned into 2 queries (as needed after 8.0.17), would be
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000 LIMIT 10;
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000;
Note that each of those would benefit from INDEX(nid). The first would pick 10 items from the index's BTree, then look them up in the data's BTree -- only 10 rows touched in each. The second would scan the INDEX until it hits 1000, and not touch the data BTree.
If you add an ORDER BY as advised, then, the first query:
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000 ORDER BY t.nid LIMIT 10;
will work identically as above. But
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000 ORDER BY t.abcd LIMIT 10;
will need to scan lots of rows, and be quite slow. And probably use a temp table and filesort. (Check EXPLAIN for details.) INDEX(nid, abcd) would help, but only a little.
And there are other variants, such as when the index can be "covering".
What is the goal of having "one query"?
Speed? -- as discussed above, there are other factors that are more pertinent.
Consistency? -- You may need a transaction to avoid, for example, getting N rows from the first query and a smaller number from the COUNT.
BEGIN;
SELECT * ...
SELECT COUNT(*) ...
COMMIT;
Single command? -- Consider a stored procedure that combines the 2 statements. Or
SELECT * FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000 LIMIT 10
UNION ALL
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t WHERE t.nid < 1000;
but that gets tricky because the number of columns is different, so some kludge would be needed to make the second query have the same number of columns. Another variant involves GROUP BY WITH ROLLUP. (But it may be even harder to fabricate.)
Lukasz's Answer looks promising. However, it gives an extra column (which might be good) and its performance needs to be tested. If you are on 8.0 and their answer works well for you, accept that Answer.
Count(*) time complexity is O(1), so you can use a subquery
SELECT *, (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000) AS cnt
FROM t
WHERE t.nid <1000
LIMIT 10
Sounds like you want FOUND_ROWS()
SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM t WHERE t.nid <1000 LIMIT 10;
SELECT FOUND_ROWS();
I would like to be able to pull back 15 or so records from a database. I've seen that using WHERE id = rand() can cause performance issues as my database gets larger. All solutions I've seen are geared towards selecting a single random record. I would like to get multiples.
Does anyone know of an efficient way to do this for large databases?
edit:
Further Edit and Testing:
I made a fairly simple table, on a new database using MyISAM. I gave this 3 fields: autokey (unsigned auto number key) bigdata (a large blob) and somemore (a medium int). I then applied random data to the table and ran a series of queries using Navicat. Here are the results:
Query 1: select * from test order by rand() limit 15
Query 2: select *
from
test
join
(select round(rand()*(select max(autokey) from test)) as val from test limit 15) as rnd
on
rnd.val=test.autokey;`
(I tried both select and select distinct and it made no discernible difference)
and:
Query 3 (I only ran this on the second test):
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT #cnt := COUNT(*) + 1,
#lim := 10
FROM test
) vars
STRAIGHT_JOIN
(
SELECT r.*,
#lim := #lim - 1
FROM test r
WHERE (#cnt := #cnt - 1)
AND RAND(20090301) < #lim / #cnt
) i
ROWS: QUERY 1: QUERY 2: QUERY 3:
2,060,922 2.977s 0.002s N/A
3,043,406 5.334s 0.001s 1.260
I would like to do more rows so I can see how query 3 scales, but at the moment, it seems as though the clear winner is query 2.
Before I wrap up this testing and declare an answer, and while I have all this data and the test environment set up, can anyone recommend any further testing?
Try:
select * from table order by rand() limit 15
Another (and possibly more efficient way) would be to join against a set of random values. This should work, if there's some contiguous integer key in the table. Here is how I would do it in postgres (My MySQL is a bit rusty)
select * from table join
(select (random()*maxid)::integer as val from generate_series(1,15)) as rnd
on rand.val=table.id;
where maxid is the highest id in table. If id has an index, then this would mean only 15 index lookup, so its very fast.
UPDATE:
Looks like there no such thing as generate_series in MySQL. My fault. We don't need it actually:
select *
from
table
join
-- this just returns 15 random numbers.
-- I need `table` here only to produce rows for rand()
(select round(rand()*(select max(id) from table)) as val from table limit 15) as rnd
on
rnd.val=table.id;
P.S. If I don't want duplicates returned, I can use (select distinct [...]) in the random generator expression.
Update: Check out the accepted answer in this question. It's pure mySQL and even deals with even distribution.
The problem with id = rand() or anything comparable in PHP is that you can't be sure whether that particular ID still exists. Therefore, you need to work with LIMIT, and that can become slow for large amounts of data.
As an alternative to that, you could try using a loop in PHP.
What the loop does is
Create a random integer number using rand(), with a scope between 0 and the number of records in the database
Query the database whether a record with that ID exists
If it exists, add the number to an array
If it doesn't, go back to step 1
End the loop when the array of random numbers contains the desired number of elements
this method could cause a lot of queries in a fragmented table, but they should be pretty fast to execute. It may be faster than LIMIT rand() in certain situations.
The LIMIT method, as outlined by #Luther, is certainly the simplest code-wise.
You could do a query with all the results or however many limited, then use mysqli_fetch_all followed by:
shuffle($a);
$a = array_slice($a, 0, 15);
For a large dataset doing
select * from table order by rand() limit 15
can be quite time and memory consuming.
If your data records happen to be numbered you can put and index on the numbering colum and do a
select * from table where no >= rand() limit 15
Or even better do the random number generation in your application and do
select * from table where no >= $rand and no <= $rand+15
If your data doesn't change too often, it might be worth to add such a numbering a column to make the selection efficient.
Assuming MySQL supports nested queries and that operations on the primary key are fast, I'd try something like
select * from table where id in (select id from table order by rand() limit 15)
I'm currently displaying a random row from all the entries and that works fine.
SELECT * FROM $db_table where live = 1 order by rand() limit 1
now, i'd like to limit it to the last 100 entries in the db.
every row in the db has an ID and a timestamp.
it's a small database, so overhead-minimization is not a priority.
thanks!
EDIT:
Still can't get it running.. I get a mysql_fetch_array error:
"Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource
Here's all of my code:
<?php $sql = "SELECT * FROM
(SELECT * FROM $db_table ORDER BY $datetime DESC LIMIT 100)
ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1";
$query = mysql_query($sql);
while($row = mysql_fetch_array($query)) {
echo "".$row['familyname']."";
} ?>
Thanks again!
This is what I came up with off the top of my head. I've tested it and it works in SQLite, so you shouldn't have much trouble with MySQL. The only change was that SQLite's random function is random() not rand():
SELECT * FROM
(SELECT * FROM $db_table ORDER BY $timestamp DESC LIMIT 100)
ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1
This page has a pretty detailed writeup on how to optimize an ORDER BY RAND()-type query. It's actually too involved for me to explain adequately on SO (also, I don't fully understand some of the SQL commands used, though the general concept makes sense), but the final optimized query makes use of several optimizations:
First, ORDER BY RAND(), which uses a filesort algorithm on the entire table, is dropped. Instead, a query is constructed to simply generate a single random id.
At this stage, an index scan is being used, which is even less efficient than a filesort in many cases, so this is optimized away with a subquery.
The WHERE clause is replaced with a JOIN to reduce the number of rows fetched by the outer SELECT, and the number of times the subquery is executed, to just 1.
In order to account for holes in the ids (from deletions) and to ensure an equal distribution, a mapping table is created to map row numbers to ids.
Triggers are used to automatically update & maintain the mapping table.
Lastly, stored procedures are created to allow multiple rows to be selected at once. (Here, ORDER BY is reintroduced, but used only on the result rows.)
Here are the performance figures:
Q1. ORDER BY RAND()
Q2. RAND() * MAX(ID)
Q3. RAND() * MAX(ID) + ORDER BY ID
100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1.000.000
Q1 0:00.718s 0:02.092s 0:18.684s 2:59.081s 58:20.000s
Q2 0:00.519s 0:00.607s 0:00.614s 0:00.628s 0:00.637s
Q3 0:00.570s 0:00.607s 0:00.614s 0:00.628s 0:00.637s