|
原文地址：http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/ricksrots
Brought to you by Rick James
Here are 160+ tips,tricks,suggestions,etc. They come from a decade of improving performance in MySQL in thousands of situations. There are exceptions to the statements below,but they should help guide you into better understanding how to effectively use MySQL.?
SELECTs -- do's and don'ts
RoTs
| Discussion |
dt >= '2010-02-01' AND dt < '2010-02-01' + INTERVAL 7 DAY????????ORDER BY NULL -- a little-known trick to avoid GROUP BY doing a sort (if there is another way).????????WHERE (a,b) > (7,8) is poorly optimized????????Gather these to study a slow query: SHOW CREATE TABLE,SHOW TABLE STATUS,EXPLAIN.????????Do not use OFFSET for pagination -- continue where you "left off"????????Don't mix DISTINCT and GROUP BY????????Be explicit about UNION ALL vs UNION DISTINCT -- it makes you think about which to use????????Do not use SELECT * except for debugging or when fetching into a hash.????????VIEWs are poorly optimized????????A subquery in the FROM clause may be useful for retrieving BLOBs without sorting them: Speed up a query by first finding the IDs,then self-JOIN to fetch the rest.?ORDER BY id LIMIT 30,10to find the 4th page of 10 items. But it is so inefficient,especially when you have thousands of pages. The thousandth page has to read (at some level) all the pages before it. "Left off" refers to having the "Next" button on one page give the id (or other sequencing info) of where the next page can be found. Then that page simply does?WHERE id > $leftoff ORDER BY id LIMIT 10.?
</tr>
INDEXing
RoTs
| Discussion |
Data_length????????5 fields in a compound index seems "too many"????????Having no compound indexes is a clue that you do not understand their power. INDEX(a,b) may be much better than INDEX(a),INDEX(b)????????INDEX(a,b) covers for INDEX(a),so drop the latter.????????2x speedup when "Using index" (a "covering" index)????????Akiban (3rd party) "groups" tables together,interleaved,to improve JOIN performance.????????FULLTEXT (MyISAM) -- watch out for ft_min_word_len=4,stopwords,and 50% rule????????A FULLTEXT index will be used before any other index.????????FULLTEXT -- consider Syphinx,Lucene,etc (3rd Party)?all?the fields needed in a SELECT are included in the INDEX.</tr>
ENGINE Differences
RoTs
| Discussion |
</tr>
Optimizations,and not
RoTs
| Discussion |
</tr>
PARTITIONing
RoTs
| Discussion |
1M rows????????No more than 50 PARTITIONs on a table (open,show table status,are impacted) (fixed in 5.6.6?)????????PARTITION BY RANGE is the only useful method.????????SUBPARTITIONs are not useful.????????The partition field should not be the field first in any key.????????It is OK to have an AUTO_INCREMENT as the first part of a compound key,or in a non-UNIQUE index.?could?INSERT a duplicate id if you?explicitly?provide the number.?
</tr>
Memory Usage
RoTs
| Discussion |
1/sec,increase table_open_cache.????????Turn off the Query Cache. Type=off and size=0?</tr>
Character Sets
RoTs
| Discussion |
utf8_general_ci > utf8_bin????????Debug stored data via HEX(col),LENGTH(col),CHAR_LENGTH(col)????????Do not use utf8 for hex or ascii strings (GUID,md5,ip address,country code,postal code,etc.)?= CHAR_LENGTH(col): with European text '=' for latin1,'>' for utf8.?
</tr>
Datatypes - Directly supported
RoTs
| Discussion |
WHERE a.start < b.end AND a.end > b.start????????Don't be surprised by AUTO_INCREMENT values after uncommon actions.? More cacheable --> Faster.?An AUTO_INCREMENT is very non-random,at least for inserting. Each new row will be on the 'end' of the table. That is,the last block is "hot spot". Thanks to caching very little I/O is needed for an AUTO_INCREMENT index.?VARCHAR(255) for everything is tempting. And for "small" tables it won't hurt. For large tables one needs to consider what happens during the execution of complex SELECTs. If a "temporary" table is implicitedly generated,the VARCHAR will take 767 bytes in the temp table (2+3*255) bytes. 2=VAR overhead,3=utf8 expansion,255=your limit.?A DELETE of the last row may or many not burn that AUTO_INCREMENT id. INSERT IGNORE burns ids because it allocates values before checking for duplicate keys. A Slave may see InnoDB ids arriving out of order (because transactions arrive in COMMIT order). A ROLLBACK (explicit or implicit) will burn any ids already allocated to INSERTs. REPLACE = DELETE + INSERT,so the INSERT comments apply to REPLACE. After a crash,the next id to be assigned may or may not be what you expect; this varies with Engine.?
</tr>
Datatypes - Implicit
RoTs
| Discussion |
</tr>
Hardware
RoTs
| Discussion |
8 cores degrade performance. (Changes coming in XtraDB,5.6,MariaDB,etc) (5.6 claims to be good to 48 cores - YMMV; 5.7 claims 64)????????A single connection will not use more than one core. Not even with UNION or PARTITION.????????Don't put a cache in front of a cache????????10x speed up when disk blocks are cached,so... Time a query twice -- first will get things cached,second will do no I/O????????Benchmark with "SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE ..." (to avoid Query cache)?
</tr>
PXC / Galera
RoTs
| Discussion |
or?slower than traditional replication????????AUTO_INCREMENT values won't be consecutive????????Handle "critical reads" using?wsrep_causal_reads????????ALTERs need to be handled differently (see RSU vs TOI)????????Lots of tricks are based on: remove from cluster + do stuff + add back to cluster????????Minimal HA: 1 node in each of 3 datacenters; one could be just a grabd?</tr>
Data Warehouse
RoTs
| Discussion |
</tr>
Miscellany
RoTs
| Discussion |
10,you?may?be in serious trouble.????????SHOW PROCESSLIST with some threads "Locked" -- some other thread is hogging something.????????SHOW PROCESSLIST may fail to show the locking thread -- it is Sleeping,but not yet COMMITted.????????>90% CPU --> investigate queries/indexes. (The SlowLog also catches such.)????????>90% of one core -- since MySQL won't use multiple cores in a single connection,this indicates an inefficient query. (Eg,12% overall on an 8-core box is probably consuming one core.)????????>90% I/O -- tuning,overall schema design,missing index,etc.????????"NoSQL" is a catchy phrase looking for a definition. By the time NoSQL gets a definition,it will look a lot like an RDBMS solution.?</tr>
（编辑：李大同）
【声明】本站内容均来自网络，其相关言论仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本站立场。若无意侵犯到您的权利，请及时与联系站长删除相关内容!
|
