一次 SQL 查询优化原理分析
-- 优化前SQLSELECT 各种字段FROM`table_name`WHERE 各种条件LIMIT0,10;
-- 优化后SQLSELECT 各种字段FROM`table_name` main_taleRIGHTJOIN(SELECT 子查询只查主键FROM`table_name`WHERE 各种条件LIMIT0,10;) temp_table ON temp_table.主键 = main_table.主键
mysql> select version();+-----------+| version() |+-----------+| 5.7.17 |+-----------+1 row in set (0.00 sec)
表结构:
mysql> desc test;+--------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |+--------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment || val | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | || source | int(10) unsigned | NO | | 0 | |+--------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
id为自增主键,val为非唯一索引。灌入大量数据,共500万:
mysql> select count(*) from test;+----------+| count(*) |+----------+| 5242882 |+----------+1 row in set (4.25 sec)
我们知道,当limit offset rows中的offset很大时,会出现效率问题:
mysql> select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5;+---------+-----+--------+| id | val | source |+---------+-----+--------+| 3327622 | 4 | 4 || 3327632 | 4 | 4 || 3327642 | 4 | 4 || 3327652 | 4 | 4 || 3327662 | 4 | 4 |+---------+-----+--------+5 rows in set (15.98 sec)
为了达到相同的目的,我们一般会改写成如下语句:
mysql> select * from test a inner join (select id from test where val=4 limit 300000,5) b on a.id=b.id;+---------+-----+--------+---------+| id | val | source | id |+---------+-----+--------+---------+| 3327622 | 4 | 4 | 3327622 || 3327632 | 4 | 4 | 3327632 || 3327642 | 4 | 4 | 3327642 || 3327652 | 4 | 4 | 3327652 || 3327662 | 4 | 4 | 3327662 |+---------+-----+--------+---------+5 rows in set (0.38 sec)
时间相差很明显。为什么会出现上面的结果?我们看一下 select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5; 的查询过程:
类似于下面这张图:

像上面这样,需要查询300005次索引节点,查询300005次聚簇索引的数据,最后再将结果过滤掉前300000条,取出最后5条。MySQL耗费了大量随机I/O在查询聚簇索引的数据上,而有300000次随机I/O查询到的数据是不会出现在结果集当中的。

下面我们实际操作一下来证实上述的推论:
select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5是扫描300005个索引节点和300005个聚簇索引上的数据节点,我们需要知道MySQL有没有办法统计在一个sql中通过索引节点查询数据节点的次数。我先试了Handler_read_*系列,很遗憾没有一个变量能满足条件。预测结果是运行select * from test a inner join (select id from test where val=4 limit 300000,5) b>之后,buffer pool中的数据页的数量远远少于对应的数量,因为前一个sql只访问5次数据页,而后一个sql访问300005次数据页。select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5;
select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5mysql> select index_name,count(*) from information_schema.INNODB_BUFFER_PAGE where INDEX_NAME in('val','primary') and TABLE_NAME like '%test%' group by index_name;Empty set (0.04 sec)
可以看出,目前buffer pool中没有关于test表的数据页。
mysql> select * from test where val=4 limit 300000,5;+---------+-----+--------+| id | val | source |+---------+-----+--------+| 3327622 | 4 | 4 || 3327632 | 4 | 4 || 3327642 | 4 | 4 || 3327652 | 4 | 4 || 3327662 | 4 | 4 |+---------+-----+--------+5 rows in set (26.19 sec)mysql> select index_name,count(*) from information_schema.INNODB_BUFFER_PAGE where INDEX_NAME in('val','primary') and TABLE_NAME like '%test%' group by index_name;+------------+----------+| index_name | count(*) |+------------+----------+| PRIMARY | 4098 || val | 208 |+------------+----------+2 rows in set (0.04 sec)
可以看出,此时buffer pool中关于test表有4098个数据页,208个索引页。
select * from test a inner join (select id from test where val=4 limit 300000,5) b>为了防止上次试验的影响,我们需要清空buffer pool,重启mysql。
mysqladmin shutdown/usr/local/bin/mysqld_safe &mysql> select index_name,count(*) from information_schema.INNODB_BUFFER_PAGE where INDEX_NAME in('val','primary') and TABLE_NAME like '%test%' group by index_name;Empty set (0.03 sec)
运行sql:
mysql> select * from test a inner join (select id from test where val=4 limit 300000,5) b on a.id=b.id;+---------+-----+--------+---------+| id | val | source | id |+---------+-----+--------+---------+| 3327622 | 4 | 4 | 3327622 || 3327632 | 4 | 4 | 3327632 || 3327642 | 4 | 4 | 3327642 || 3327652 | 4 | 4 | 3327652 || 3327662 | 4 | 4 | 3327662 |+---------+-----+--------+---------+5 rows in set (0.09 sec)
mysql> select index_name,count(*) from information_schema.INNODB_BUFFER_PAGE where INDEX_NAME in('val','primary') and TABLE_NAME like '%test%' group by index_name;+------------+----------+| index_name | count(*) |+------------+----------+| PRIMARY | 5 || val | 390 |+------------+----------+2 rows in set (0.03 sec)
mysql> select * from test a inner join (select id from test where val=4 limit 300000,5) b on a.id=b.id;+---------+-----+--------+---------+| id | val | source | id |+---------+-----+--------+---------+| 3327622 | 4 | 4 | 3327622 || 3327632 | 4 | 4 | 3327632 || 3327642 | 4 | 4 | 3327642 || 3327652 | 4 | 4 | 3327652 || 3327662 | 4 | 4 | 3327662 |+---------+-----+--------+---------+5 rows in set (0.09 sec)mysql> select index_name,count(*) from information_schema.INNODB_BUFFER_PAGE where INDEX_NAME in('val','primary') and TABLE_NAME like '%test%' group by index_name;+------------+----------+| index_name | count(*) |+------------+----------+| PRIMARY | 5 || val | 390 |+------------+----------+2 rows in set (0.03 sec)
我们可以看明显的看出两者的差别:第一个sql加载了4098个数据页到buffer pool,而第二个sql只加载了5个数据页到buffer pool。符合我们的预测。也证实了为什么第一个sql会慢:读取大量的无用数据行(300000),最后却抛弃掉。
而且这会造成一个问题:加载了很多热点不是很高的数据页到buffer pool,会造成buffer pool的污染,占用buffer pool的空间。
遇到的问题
为了在每次重启时确保清空buffer pool,我们需要关闭innodb_buffer_pool_dump_at_shutdown和innodb_buffer_pool_load_at_startup,这两个选项能够控制数据库关闭时dump出buffer pool中的数据和在数据库开启时载入在磁盘上备份buffer pool的数据。
参考资料: 1.https://explainextended.com/2009/10/23/mysql-order-by-limit-performance-late-row-lookups/ 2.https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/innodb-information-schema-buffer-pool-tables.html 分享一下我写的《10万字Springboot经典学习笔记》中,点击下面小卡片,进入【Java秃头哥】,回复:笔记,即可免费获取。
点赞是最大的支持 
分享一下我写的《10万字Springboot经典学习笔记》中,点击下面小卡片,进入【Java秃头哥】,回复:笔记,即可免费获取。
点赞是最大的支持
