In some cases, MySQL can use an index to satisfy an
ORDER BY clause without doing extra
sorting.
The index can also be used even if the ORDER
BY does not match the index exactly, as long as all
unused portions of the index and all extra ORDER
BY columns are constants in the
WHERE clause. The following queries use the
index to resolve the ORDER BY part:
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BYkey_part1,key_part2,... ; SELECT * FROM t1 WHEREkey_part1=constantORDER BYkey_part2; SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BYkey_part1DESC,key_part2DESC; SELECT * FROM t1 WHEREkey_part1= 1 ORDER BYkey_part1DESC,key_part2DESC; SELECT * FROM t1 WHEREkey_part1>constantORDER BYkey_part1ASC; SELECT * FROM t1 WHEREkey_part1<constantORDER BYkey_part1DESC; SELECT * FROM t1 WHEREkey_part1=constant1ANDkey_part2>constant2ORDER BYkey_part2;
In some cases, MySQL cannot use indexes
to resolve the ORDER BY, although it still
uses indexes to find the rows that match the
WHERE clause. These cases include the
following:
The query uses
ORDER BYon different indexes:SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY
key1,key2;The query uses
ORDER BYon nonconsecutive parts of an index:SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE
key2=constantORDER BYkey_part2;The query mixes
ASCandDESC:SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY
key_part1DESC,key_part2ASC;The index used to fetch the rows differs from the one used in the
ORDER BY:SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE
key2=constantORDER BYkey1;The query uses
ORDER BYwith an expression that includes terms other than the index column name:SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY ABS(
key); SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY -key;The query joins many tables, and the columns in the
ORDER BYare not all from the first nonconstant table that is used to retrieve rows. (This is the first table in theEXPLAINoutput that does not have aconstjoin type.)The query has different
ORDER BYandGROUP BYexpressions.There is an index on only a prefix of a column named in the
ORDER BYclause. In this case, the index cannot be used to fully resolve the sort order. For example, if only the first 10 bytes of aCHAR(20)column are indexed, the index cannot distinguish values past the 10th byte and afilesortwill be needed.The index does not store rows in order. For example, this is true for a
HASHindex in aMEMORYtable.
Availability of an index for sorting may be affected by the
use of column aliases. Suppose that the column
t1.a is indexed. In this statement, the
name of the column in the select list is a.
It refers to t1.a, so for the reference to
a in the ORDER BY, the
index can be used:
SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
In this statement, the name of the column in the select list
is also a, but it is the alias name. It
refers to ABS(a), so for the reference to
a in the ORDER BY, the
index cannot be used:
SELECT ABS(a) AS a FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
In the following statement, the ORDER BY
refers to a name that is not the name of a column in the
select list. But there is a column in t1
named a, so the ORDER BY
uses that and the index can be used. (The resulting sort order
may be completely different from the order for
ABS(a), of course.)
SELECT ABS(a) AS b FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
By default, MySQL sorts all GROUP BY
queries as if
you specified col1,
col2, ...ORDER BY
in the query as
well. If you include an explicit col1,
col2, ...ORDER BY
clause that contains the same column list, MySQL optimizes it
away without any speed penalty, although the sorting still
occurs.
If a query includes GROUP BY but you want
to avoid the overhead of sorting the result, you can suppress
sorting by specifying ORDER BY NULL. For
example:
INSERT INTO foo SELECT a, COUNT(*) FROM bar GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
The optimizer may still choose to use sorting to implement
grouping operations. ORDER BY NULL
suppresses sorting of the result, not prior sorting done by
grouping operations to determine the result.
With EXPLAIN SELECT
... ORDER BY, you can check whether MySQL can use
indexes to resolve the query. It cannot if you see
Using filesort in the
Extra column. See
Section 8.8.1, “Optimizing Queries with EXPLAIN”. Filesort uses a fixed-length
row-storage format similar to that used by the
MEMORY storage engine.
Variable-length types such as
VARCHAR are stored using a
fixed length.
MySQL has two filesort algorithms for
sorting and retrieving results. The original method uses only
the ORDER BY columns. The modified method
uses not just the ORDER BY columns, but all
the columns referenced by the query.
The optimizer selects which filesort
algorithm to use. It normally uses the modified algorithm
except when BLOB or
TEXT columns are involved, in
which case it uses the original algorithm. For both
algorithms, the sort buffer size is the
sort_buffer_size system
variable value.
The original filesort algorithm works as
follows:
Read all rows according to key or by table scanning. Skip rows that do not match the
WHEREclause.For each row, store in the sort buffer a tuple consisting of a pair of values (the sort key value and the row ID).
If all pairs fit into the sort buffer, no temporary file is created. Otherwise, when the sort buffer becomes full, run a qsort (quicksort) on it in memory and write it to a temporary file. Save a pointer to the sorted block.
Repeat the preceding steps until all rows have been read.
Do a multi-merge of up to
MERGEBUFF(7) regions to one block in another temporary file. Repeat until all blocks from the first file are in the second file.Repeat the following until there are fewer than
MERGEBUFF2(15) blocks left.On the last multi-merge, only the row ID (the last part of the value pair) is written to a result file.
Read the rows in sorted order using the row IDs in the result file. To optimize this, read in a large block of row IDs, sort them, and use them to read the rows in sorted order into a row buffer. The row buffer size is the
read_rnd_buffer_sizesystem variable value. The code for this step is in thesql/records.ccsource file.
One problem with this approach is that it reads rows twice:
One time during WHERE clause evaluation,
and again after sorting the value pairs. And even if the rows
were accessed successively the first time (for example, if a
table scan is done), the second time they are accessed
randomly. (The sort keys are ordered, but the row positions
are not.)
The modified filesort algorithm
incorporates an optimization to avoid reading the rows twice:
It records the sort key value, but instead of the row ID, it
records the columns referenced by the query. The modified
filesort algorithm works like this:
Read the rows that match the
WHEREclause.For each row, store in the sort buffer a tuple consisting of the sort key value and the columns referenced by the query.
When the sort buffer becomes full, sort the tuples by sort key value in memory and write it to a temporary file.
After merge-sorting the temporary file, retrieve the rows in sorted order, but read the columns required by the query directly from the sorted tuples rather than by accessing the table a second time.
The tuples used by the modified filesort
algorithm are longer than the pairs used by the original
algorithm, and fewer of them fit in the sort buffer. As a
result, it is possible for the extra I/O to make the modified
approach slower, not faster. To avoid a slowdown, the
optimizer uses the modified algorithm only if the total size
of the extra columns in the sort tuple does not exceed the
value of the
max_length_for_sort_data
system variable. (A symptom of setting the value of this
variable too high is a combination of high disk activity and
low CPU activity.)
If a filesort is done,
EXPLAIN output includes
Using filesort in the
Extra column.
Suppose that a table t1 has four
VARCHAR columns a,
b, c, and
d and that the optimizer uses
filesort for this query:
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a, b;
The query sorts by a and
b, but returns all columns, so the columns
referenced by the query are a,
b, c, and
d. Depending on which
filesort algorithm the optimizer chooses,
the query executes as follows:
For the original algorithm, sort buffer tuples have these contents:
(fixed size a value, fixed size b value, row ID into t1)
The optimizer sorts on the fixed size values. After sorting,
the optimizer reads the tuples in order and uses the row ID in
each tuple to read rows from t1 to obtain
the select list column values.
For the modified algorithm, sort buffer tuples have these contents:
(fixed size a value, fixed size b value, a value, b value, c value, d value)
The optimizer sorts on the fixed size values. After sorting,
the optimizer reads the tuples in order and uses the values
for a, b,
c, and d to obtain the
select list column values without reading
t1 again.
For slow queries for which filesort is not
used, try lowering
max_length_for_sort_data to a
value that is appropriate to trigger a
filesort.
To increase ORDER BY speed, check whether
you can get MySQL to use indexes rather than an extra sorting
phase. If this is not possible, you can try the following
strategies:
Increase the
sort_buffer_sizevariable value.Increase the
read_rnd_buffer_sizevariable value.Use less RAM per row by declaring columns only as large as they need to be to hold the values stored in them. For example,
CHAR(16)is better thanCHAR(200)if values never exceed 16 characters.Change the
tmpdirsystem variable to point to a dedicated file system with large amounts of free space. The variable value can list several paths that are used in round-robin fashion; you can use this feature to spread the load across several directories. Paths should be separated by colon characters (“:”) on Unix and semicolon characters (“;”) on Windows, NetWare, and OS/2. The paths should name directories in file systems located on different physical disks, not different partitions on the same disk.
Another problem is that the optimization is lost when you have an OR on a prefix of the index:
SELECT * FROM t1 FORCE INDEX (key1_key2_key3)
WHERE key1=1 OR key1=2 ORDER BY key2,key3 LIMIT 5, 5;
This can be worked around by using UNION:
(SELECT * FROM t1 FORCE INDEX (key1_key2_key3)
WHERE key1=1 ORDER BY key2,key3 LIMIT 10)
UNION
(SELECT * FROM t1 FORCE INDEX (key1_key2_key3)
WHERE key1=2 ORDER BY key2,key3 LIMIT 10)
ORDER BY key2,key3 LIMIT 5, 5
This rewrite can make the query go ~20000 times faster on a table with ~2M rows.
Posted by Ravenous Bugblatter Beast on August 15 2006
If you are selecting a wide result set and using ORDER BY RAND() with a LIMIT, you can often speed things up by changing a query of the form:
SELECT id, col1, col2, ... , colN FROM tab WHERE conditions ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT m
To a query of the form:
SELECT id, col1, col2, ... , colN FROM tab WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM tab WHERE conditions ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT m)
Although the second query has to perform an additional select, it only has to sort a result set containing the single id column, rather than the full result set you are returning from the query.
===========================================================
it's true, but if we have a big database with 1000ths of table rows and we must to join them ...... so oooops ;)
Lately I saw the following link http://jan.kneschke.de/projects/mysql/order-by-rand/ .....you can read here how to get more speed from your executing query in some cases. First read the explanation and see bottom of the page:
============================================================
Performance
Now let's see what happends to our performance. We have 3 different queries for solving our problems.
* Q1. ORDER BY RAND()
* Q2. RAND() * MAX(ID)
* Q3. RAND() * MAX(ID) + ORDER BY ID
Q1 is expected to cost N * log2(N), Q2 and Q3 are nearly constant.
The get real values we filled the table with N rows ( one thousand to one million) and executed each query 1000 times.
----------------------------------------------------------
Rows ||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
----------------------------------------------------------
As you can see the plain ORDER BY RAND() is already behind the optimized query at only 100 rows in the table.
============================================================
Imagine you have a table with two columns (id, name) of thousands of names of people.
If you want to produce a result of only one record, then this is by far the fastest way to do it. You select a random ID from the table, and query it directly.
The problem is, if you want to retrieve two random records from the table.
ORDER BY RAND() will give you, for example, ID 390 and ID 4957 in a result, but the sugested way, will calculate a random index (ex. 390) and return two records based on that index, ID 390 and ID 391...
This means, that the order of the result is not random, only the first "fetched" ID. If you query for more than two records, it will give you ID 390, 391, 392, 393...
In other words, this does not produce an actual random selected result on more than one record.
To order by an ENUM field make sure the ENUM values are in alphabetical order or reverse-alphabetical order and then perform the ORDER BY clause.
alter table `yourtablename` order by `yourfieldname` desc;
In this case, when you execute:
select * from `yourtablename` limit 1;
you get the record for which yourfieldname is the largest.
* Q3. RAND() * MAX(ID) + ORDER BY ID
You should NOT use these examples, because it could return invalid data:
With that you receive the highest stored index. Then a random number between 0 and MAX(id) is returned. 0 is a unwanted result. Imagine ID=3 is returned and this row has been deleted. Then this is a unwanted result, too.
If you need only 1 row in case of quotes or similar things then you ever should use the LIMIT 1 at the end of the query.
SELECT * FROM t1 FORCE INDEX (key1_key2_key3)
WHERE key1=1 OR key1=2 ORDER BY key2,key3 LIMIT 5, 5;
I found that IGNORE INDEX (key1) and use key3 instead works perfectly sometimes so you don't need to use UNION:
SELECT * FROM t1 IGNORE INDEX (key1)
WHERE key1=1 OR key1=2 ORDER BY key3 LIMIT 5, 5;
And it is interesting that the more elements I have - the faster it works, i.e. (key1=1 OR key1=2 OR key1=3 OR key1=4) works much faster on my table (>100 000 rows) than (key1=1 OR key1=2) .. (MySQL 5.0.77)
SELECT * FROM table WHERE col=<constant> ORDER BY id
where "id" is the primary key, and "col" is indexed.
MySQL will be able to use the index on "col" to sort. No need to create a composite index on (col, id).
I believe this is because InnoDB tables are stored with a clustered index (the primary key).
It doesn't work on MyISAM table however.
Always check with an "explain" if the optimisation is used (the Extra column from the explain must not contain "using filesort")