Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort

I sent this Friday, but it never made it to the list?!

-----Original Message-----
From: Daevid Vincent [mailto:daevid@daevid.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:27 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort

I'm trying to optimize a query that doesn't seem all that complicated,
however I can't seem to get it to not use a temp table and filesort.

developer@vm_vz_daevid:~$ mysql --version
mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.92, for portbld-freebsd8.1 (amd64) using 5.2


EXPLAIN EXTENDED
SELECT
-- d.date_release,
-- d.dvd_title,
-- s.type,
-- s.id_place,
s.scene_id AS index_id,
s.dvd_id
FROM
dvds AS d JOIN scenes_list AS s
ON s.dvd_id = d.dvd_id
AND d.status = 'ok'
AND d.date_release != '0000-00-00'
ORDER BY d.date_release DESC,
d.dvd_title ASC,
s.type ASC,
s.id_place ASC;


*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: d
type: ref
possible_keys: PRIMARY,date_release,status,status_release
key: status_release
key_len: 1
ref: const
rows: 1976
Extra: Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort
*************************** 2. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: s
type: ref
possible_keys: dvd_id_2,dvd_id
key: dvd_id
key_len: 4
ref: videoszcontent.d.dvd_id
rows: 6
Extra: Using where
2 rows in set, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

There are proper indexes on most every column in both tables (as you can see
there).

[a] the EXTENDED keyword doesn't seem to do anything different? I get the
same columns and results??!

[b] The commented out columns above I thought might help with the ORDER BY
for some reason from my reading here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/order-by-optimization .html
they did not.

[c] lopping off the ORDER BY all together stops the "Using temporary; Using
filesort" of course. Yeah! But now I'm left with a table of data in random
order. Re-sorting it in PHP seems like an even bigger waste of cycles, when
no doubt MySQL can sort hella-faster.

[d] just doing " ORDER BY d.date_release DESC, d.dvd_title ASC; ", prevents
the "using temporary" but still does "filesort" and again I'm in the boat of
[c]

I guess my question is this: Is it ALWAYS possible to fabricate a
query/schema in such a way that MySQL ALWAYS uses the ideal 'Using where'
extra -- you just have to keep at it? Or is it the case that sometimes
you're just S.O.L. and no matter what, MySQL is going to give you a
Cleveland Steamer? In other words, am I wasting my time trying to tweak my
query and indexes here with the idea there's some magic incantation that
will get this "right" or do I just have to accept it is what it is and it's
not going to do any better.

d.


--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=gcdmg-mysql-2@m.gmane.org

Re: Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort

> Is it ALWAYS possible to fabricate a query/schema in
> such a way that MySQL ALWAYS uses the ideal

No. Optimisation is better in 5.6 than in 5.0, though.

Did you try adding multi-column indexes to cover the join and the order
by clause?

> 'Using where' extra -- you just have to keep at it?
> Or is it the case that sometimes you're just S.O.L

I don't know a general answer to that question. To figure out the answer
in a particular case, I usually have to see the Create Table statements,
see how the query performs with representative data, and experiment with
various index setups.

PB

-----

On 5/31/2011 1:27 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> I sent this Friday, but it never made it to the list?!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daevid Vincent [mailto:daevid@daevid.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:27 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort
>
> I'm trying to optimize a query that doesn't seem all that complicated,
> however I can't seem to get it to not use a temp table and filesort.
>
> developer@vm_vz_daevid:~$ mysql --version
> mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.92, for portbld-freebsd8.1 (amd64) using 5.2
>
>
> EXPLAIN EXTENDED
> SELECT
> -- d.date_release,
> -- d.dvd_title,
> -- s.type,
> -- s.id_place,
> s.scene_id AS index_id,
> s.dvd_id
> FROM
> dvds AS d JOIN scenes_list AS s
> ON s.dvd_id = d.dvd_id
> AND d.status = 'ok'
> AND d.date_release != '0000-00-00'
> ORDER BY d.date_release DESC,
> d.dvd_title ASC,
> s.type ASC,
> s.id_place ASC;
>
>
> *************************** 1. row ***************************
> id: 1
> select_type: SIMPLE
> table: d
> type: ref
> possible_keys: PRIMARY,date_release,status,status_release
> key: status_release
> key_len: 1
> ref: const
> rows: 1976
> Extra: Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort
> *************************** 2. row ***************************
> id: 1
> select_type: SIMPLE
> table: s
> type: ref
> possible_keys: dvd_id_2,dvd_id
> key: dvd_id
> key_len: 4
> ref: videoszcontent.d.dvd_id
> rows: 6
> Extra: Using where
> 2 rows in set, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> There are proper indexes on most every column in both tables (as you can see
> there).
>
> [a] the EXTENDED keyword doesn't seem to do anything different? I get the
> same columns and results??!
>
> [b] The commented out columns above I thought might help with the ORDER BY
> for some reason from my reading here:
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/order-by-optimization .html
> they did not.
>
> [c] lopping off the ORDER BY all together stops the "Using temporary; Using
> filesort" of course. Yeah! But now I'm left with a table of data in random
> order. Re-sorting it in PHP seems like an even bigger waste of cycles, when
> no doubt MySQL can sort hella-faster.
>
> [d] just doing " ORDER BY d.date_release DESC, d.dvd_title ASC; ", prevents
> the "using temporary" but still does "filesort" and again I'm in the boat of
> [c]
>
> I guess my question is this: Is it ALWAYS possible to fabricate a
> query/schema in such a way that MySQL ALWAYS uses the ideal 'Using where'
> extra -- you just have to keep at it? Or is it the case that sometimes
> you're just S.O.L. and no matter what, MySQL is going to give you a
> Cleveland Steamer? In other words, am I wasting my time trying to tweak my
> query and indexes here with the idea there's some magic incantation that
> will get this "right" or do I just have to accept it is what it is and it's
> not going to do any better.
>
> d.
>
>

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=gcdmg-mysql-2@m.gmane.org