我已經下載了employees database並執行了一些查詢以進行基準測試。
然後我注意到有一個查詢沒有使用覆蓋索引,儘管我之前創建了相應的索引。只有當我在查詢中添加了FORCE INDEX
子句時,才使用覆蓋索引。
我上傳了兩個文件,一個是the executed SQL queries,另一個是the results。
你能說出爲什麼查詢僅在添加FORCE INDEX
子句時才使用覆蓋索引嗎? EXPLAIN顯示,在這兩種情況下,無論如何都使用dept_no_from_date_idx
索引。查詢在適用時不使用覆蓋索引
去適應,這樣的標準,我也在這裏寫這兩個文件的內容:
的SQL查詢:
USE employees;
/* Creating an index for an index-covered query */
CREATE INDEX dept_no_from_date_idx ON dept_emp (dept_no, from_date);
/* Show `dept_emp` table structure, indexes and generic data */
SHOW TABLE STATUS LIKE "dept_emp";
DESCRIBE dept_emp;
SHOW KEYS IN dept_emp;
/* The EXPLAIN shows that the subquery doesn't use a covering-index */
EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
/* The subquery should use a covering index, but isn't */
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`);
/* The EXPLAIN shows that the subquery DOES use a covering-index,
thanks to the FORCE INDEX clause */
EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
/* The subquery use a covering index */
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp FORCE INDEX(dept_no_from_date_idx) WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`);
結果:
--------------
/* Creating an index for an index-covered query */
CREATE INDEX dept_no_from_date_idx ON dept_emp (dept_no, from_date)
--------------
Query OK, 331603 rows affected (33.95 sec)
Records: 331603 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
--------------
/* Show `dept_emp` table structure, indexes and generic data */
SHOW TABLE STATUS LIKE "dept_emp"
--------------
+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------+------------+-----------------+----------+----------------+---------+
| Name | Engine | Version | Row_format | Rows | Avg_row_length | Data_length | Max_data_length | Index_length | Data_free | Auto_increment | Create_time | Update_time | Check_time | Collation | Checksum | Create_options | Comment |
+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------+------------+-----------------+----------+----------------+---------+
| dept_emp | InnoDB | 10 | Compact | 331883 | 36 | 12075008 | 0 | 21544960 | 29360128 | NULL | 2010-05-04 13:07:49 | NULL | NULL | utf8_general_ci | NULL | | |
+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------+------------+-----------------+----------+----------------+---------+
1 row in set (0.47 sec)
--------------
DESCRIBE dept_emp
--------------
+-----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| emp_no | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| dept_no | char(4) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| from_date | date | NO | | NULL | |
| to_date | date | NO | | NULL | |
+-----------+---------+------+-----+---------+-------+
4 rows in set (0.05 sec)
--------------
SHOW KEYS IN dept_emp
--------------
+----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| dept_emp | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | emp_no | A | 331883 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| dept_emp | 0 | PRIMARY | 2 | dept_no | A | 331883 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| dept_emp | 1 | emp_no | 1 | emp_no | A | 331883 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| dept_emp | 1 | dept_no | 1 | dept_no | A | 7 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| dept_emp | 1 | dept_no_from_date_idx | 1 | dept_no | A | 13 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| dept_emp | 1 | dept_no_from_date_idx | 2 | from_date | A | 165941 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+----------+------------+-----------------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
6 rows in set (0.23 sec)
--------------
/* The EXPLAIN shows that the subquery doesn't use a covering-index */
EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
/* The subquery should use a covering index, but isn't */
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+-------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+-------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 50 | |
| 1 | PRIMARY | dept_emp | eq_ref | PRIMARY,emp_no,dept_no,dept_no_from_date_idx | PRIMARY | 16 | der.emp_no,der.dept_no | 1 | |
| 2 | DERIVED | dept_emp | ref | dept_no,dept_no_from_date_idx | dept_no_from_date_idx | 12 | | 21402 | Using where |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+-------------+
3 rows in set (0.09 sec)
--------------
/* The EXPLAIN shows that the subquery DOES use a covering-index,
thanks to the FORCE INDEX clause */
EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
/* The subquery use a covering index */
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp FORCE INDEX(dept_no_from_date_idx) WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 50 | |
| 1 | PRIMARY | dept_emp | eq_ref | PRIMARY,emp_no,dept_no,dept_no_from_date_idx | PRIMARY | 16 | der.emp_no,der.dept_no | 1 | |
| 2 | DERIVED | dept_emp | ref | dept_no_from_date_idx | dept_no_from_date_idx | 12 | | 37468 | Using where; Using index |
+----+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
3 rows in set (0.05 sec)
Bye
編輯:
我注意到,有相當的是最後兩個查詢之間的顯著執行速度的差異,結果被放在你面前:
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| emp_no | dept_no | from_date | to_date |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| 38552 | d001 | 1985-04-16 | 2000-10-20 |
... omitted ...
| 98045 | d001 | 1985-03-28 | 9999-01-01 |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
50 rows in set (0.31 sec)
--------------
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp FORCE INDEX(dept_no_from_date_idx) WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| emp_no | dept_no | from_date | to_date |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| 38552 | d001 | 1985-04-16 | 2000-10-20 |
... omitted ...
| 98045 | d001 | 1985-03-28 | 9999-01-01 |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
50 rows in set (0.06 sec)
但是,如果我改變執行的順序(使最後查詢首先被執行,並且待最後執行的第一個查詢),則執行速度是相同的:
--------------
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp FORCE INDEX(dept_no_from_date_idx) WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| emp_no | dept_no | from_date | to_date |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| 38552 | d001 | 1985-04-16 | 2000-10-20 |
... omitted ...
| 98045 | d001 | 1985-03-28 | 9999-01-01 |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
50 rows in set (0.08 sec)
--------------
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE * FROM dept_emp INNER JOIN (
SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE emp_no, dept_no FROM dept_emp WHERE dept_no="d001" ORDER BY from_date DESC LIMIT 20000,50
) AS `der` USING (`emp_no`, `dept_no`)
--------------
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| emp_no | dept_no | from_date | to_date |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
| 38552 | d001 | 1985-04-16 | 2000-10-20 |
... omitted ...
| 98045 | d001 | 1985-03-28 | 9999-01-01 |
+--------+---------+------------+------------+
50 rows in set (0.08 sec)
它不能被該第二查詢正在採取從高速緩存中,因爲SQL_NO_CACHE寫在兩個查詢中。那麼爲什麼在第一個例子中,第一個查詢需要0.31秒和第二個0.06秒,但在第二個例子中,兩個查詢都需要0.08秒?
EDIT2:
我認爲,執行速度的差異從操作系統的緩存,也許還有其他因素得出。重複執行上述2個查詢時,執行時間差異變得可以忽略不計。我重複執行了上述2個查詢3次,得到如下結果:
#1: 0.08 sec
#2: 0.03 sec
#1: 0.05 sec
#2: 0.05 sec
#1: 0.03 sec
#2: 0.05 sec
錯誤報告中提出:http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=53442 – Dor 2010-05-05 16:15:32