List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Fagyal Csongor Date:September 14 2004 4:24pm
Subject:Re: MySQL speed
View as plain text  

> Hello,
> For several years I am hosting a popular website using PHP and MySQL.
> As the site is growing and evolving, speed is becoming more and more 
> important.
> With my latest inventions on the website, I notice that the website is 
> becoming slow and I want to find out what's causing this.
> And this is the question that makes me totally confused:
> How is it possible that the following query:
> "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM messages WHERE touser = 20 AND hidden = 0" with 
> a key on touser can take up to 1 second (I even had moments where it 
> would take up to 18 seconds!!!) even if EXPLAIN says mysql only has to 
> walk trough 2500 rows thanks to the key on touser. (Oh yeah, I did an 
> ANALYSE on the table)
> If I think of making my own program walking trough a datafile with 
> 2500 items, checking every item for the flag "hidden" I would think 
> that should not take up to even 0.01 second! Of course MySQL is more 
> complicated than this, but I think it still is a very big difference.
> More information: table messages is an MyISAM table of 48MB which has 
> 67000 rows, a primary key on id, a key on touser and a key on isread 
> with the following fields: id - bigint(20) autoincrement, fromuser - 
> int(10) unsigned, touser - int(10) unsigned, ts - datetime, message - 
> text, isread - tinyint(1) unsigned, ipnumber - varchar(20), hidden - 
> tinyint(1).
> I experience this problem also with other tables and queries but as 
> this is the most simple one, I show this one as an example.
> So: is it normal that the difference is so big, and that tables which 
> are not so very big (I think 67000 rows, or 48MB is not that huge for 
> a good database) are so hard to find rows into, keeping in mind that 
> the key makes the query only walk trough 2500 rows? Or is this normal?

Just some ideas for you.

1: I think you should use "CHAR" instead of "VARCHAR". Might take more 
place, but using fixed length fields in general mean faster access time.

2: To walk through 2500 rows might take some time, as the "hidden" 
fields for each rows must be fetched (IMHO).

3: You should use query caching. That might speed up your query 

4: You can try a hack: instead of using a field do denote that a user is 
not hidden, you might want to consider using some other method, e.g. 
using a signed integer for userid, and storing inactive users with  a 
negative userid.  Then you could count on users "where userid > 0".

- Csongor Fagyal
MySQL speedDirk Schippers14 Sep
  • Re: MySQL speedFagyal Csongor14 Sep
    • Re: MySQL speedRoel Schroeven14 Sep
  • Re: MySQL speedDan Nelson14 Sep
    • RE: MySQL speedDonny Simonton14 Sep
  • Re: [Bulk] Re: MySQL speedO'K Web Design14 Sep
  • Re: MySQL speedTobias Asplund14 Sep
    • Re: MySQL speedRoel Schroeven15 Sep