6

DB: MySQL 5.5.20 (WampServer, default configuration)
OS: Win 7
HDD: Western Digital 3TB Caviar Green, 3.5", IntelliPower, 64MB, Sata3 (WD30EZRX)
Memory: 8GB
MySQL my.ini: http://pastie.org/private/go9kaxlmlvirati2txbaa

Query in question:

SELECT name.id AS name_id, name.name, cast_info.id,
cast_info.role_id, cast_info.movie_id
FROM cast_info
LEFT JOIN name ON name.id = cast_info.person_id
WHERE cast_info.movie_id = 1000000
ORDER BY cast_info.movie_id ASC

It fetches all people who worked on a given movie. Problem is it can take anywhere from 0.1s to nearly 2.0s. That's too long. When the user needs to run it 10k times they might as well uninstall the application. Even I haven't had the patience to wait for it to finish.

edit: The time it takes to run the query is determined by the number of people who worked on it. Roughly 0.1s for each 10 people.

EXPLAIN:

*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: cast_info
type: ref
possible_keys: idx_mid,mpi
key: idx_mid
key_len: 4
ref: const
rows: 15
Extra:
*************************** 2. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: name
type: eq_ref
possible_keys: PRIMARY,id_name_idx
key: PRIMARY
key_len: 4
ref: imdb.cast_info.person_id
rows: 1
Extra:

Tables:

CREATE TABLE cast_info (
id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
person_id int(11) NOT NULL,
movie_id int(11) NOT NULL,
person_role_id int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
note text,
nr_order int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
role_id int(11) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
KEY idx_pid (person_id),
KEY idx_mid (movie_id),
KEY idx_cid (person_role_id),
KEY cast_info_role_id_exists (role_id),
KEY mpi (movie_id,person_id,id)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=33261692 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8

CREATE TABLE name (
id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
name varchar(110) NOT NULL,
imdb_index varchar(12) DEFAULT NULL,
imdb_id int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
gender varchar(1) DEFAULT NULL,
name_pcode_cf varchar(5) DEFAULT NULL,
name_pcode_nf varchar(5) DEFAULT NULL,
surname_pcode varchar(5) DEFAULT NULL,
md5sum varchar(32) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
KEY idx_name (name(6)),
KEY idx_imdb_id (imdb_id),
KEY idx_pcodecf (name_pcode_cf),
KEY idx_pcodenf (name_pcode_nf),
KEY idx_pcode (surname_pcode),
KEY idx_md5 (md5sum),
KEY id_name_idx (id,name)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=4287972 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8

Thanks!

edit: MyISAM is used because this is a local database, used by one local application, by one user. Only one query is executed at the same time. Also because IMDbPy takes at least a month to build the database with InnoDB...

edit: Query EXPLAIN after converting to InnoDB:

*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: cast_info
type: ref
possible_keys: mpi
key: mpi
key_len: 3
ref: const
rows: 23
Extra:
*************************** 2. row ***************************
id: 1
select_type: SIMPLE
table: name
type: eq_ref
possible_keys: PRIMARY,id_name_idx
key: PRIMARY
key_len: 4
ref: imdb.cast_info.person_id
rows: 1
Extra:

Improve this question
1
  • What are your settings for key_buffer_size and innodb_buffer_pool_size? Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 23:25

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
5

It would run faster with InnoDB,

  • The PRIMARY KEY is 'clustered'; this makes the lookup into name faster.

  • A suitable setting of innodb_buffer_pool_size of, say, 5G (for your 8GB machine) would cache a lot of stuff, thereby minimizing the I/O for 10K operations.

You could also shrink the data (and decrease the I/O) by using MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED or SMALLINT UNSIGNED where appropriate.

There are redundant indexes that could (should) be removed; this would speed up the load. Also name(6) is probably useless.

Improve this answer
7
  • I converted all possible fields to MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED and one to TINYINT UNSIGNED. I don't think that changed anything. I could remove some indexes but not sure which. For instance the mpi index was recommended to me on freenode's #mysql channel for this exact query. Are indexes helpful if I only need a field for the SELECT x,y,z part and not JOINs or WHERE? Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 1:06
  • Indexes mostly help with WHERE, but they can help with JOIN and ORDER BY. mpi is a "covering index", meaning that the index (a separate BTree) provides all the columns needed for the query. Your EXPLAIN does not show it using that index. DROP INDEX idx_mid; to see if it helps. Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 2:13
  • I dropped idx_mid. Converted all tables to InnoDB. I can't set innodb_buffer_pool_size above 2G so it's at 2G. And the query became slower :/ Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 13:23
  • Please provide the EXPLAIN after converting to InnoDB. Commented Dec 22, 2015 at 0:04
  • Added to first post. Rows differs because I might've used another movie_id earlier. Commented Dec 22, 2015 at 0:40
1

I saw query then explain and then table definition and first question came into my mind. Why are you still on MyISAM @ 5.5? Let's just change this to InnoDB and you should get the results. This 0.1 to 2 range could be caused by locks or other reasons but let's avoid that issue first?

Be-aware that below conversion will lock the tables and may cause downtime.

alter table cast_info engine=innodb;

alter table name engine=innodb;

Improve this answer
10
  • Why MyISAM? 1) Building the database with InnoDB takes such a ridiculous amount of time nobody has time for it so MyISAM is the only option here. 2) This is a local database only ever used by a single local application by one user. Ever. So only one query is executed at a time. No two queries are ever executed at the same time. So I don't see how a lock could be causing this? 3) I've already tried converting the tables to InnoDB, nothing changed. In fact, the query took even longer to execute so I converted back to MyISAM. Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 17:24
  • 1
    @TheMagician ad 1) - using InnoDB instead of MyISAM for your tables means just naming a different engine in your create table statements, there is not much "design time" difference to make it into a "a ridiculous amount of time" - If you meant foreign keys and stuff, thats still optional (even when I would suggest to set them properly) Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 21:15
  • 2
    Sounds like IMDbPy needs some help with tuning, keys, etc. Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 23:24
  • 2
    Well I'd convert all to innodb after imdbpy finishes and back it up. at this point innodb will give you best performance boost and then some variable tuning.... Also better tune atleast buffers to start with before complaining performance. Convert innodb set bufferpool to atleast 4-6G and then see the perf. This may not be dedicated box as well!! +1 for imdbpy help @rick..... Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 4:12
  • 1
    @TheMagician, ah, so thats what you mean with "building", then the suggestion to "convert the tables later" is probably really a good one, use the alters as mysql_user suggests. The scripts is maybe not using transactions properly so thats why its slow.. Commented Dec 21, 2015 at 10:02
1

Performance is consistent with the hard drive, you shall consider getting an SSD or even better, a RAID system. Your drive is a slow desktop class hard driver, totally not fit for database work. Try testing with a 7200 rpm desktop, and you will already see improvements. If the People table is so large that it does not fit into RAM (cached by OS, not loaded in user memory), physical non-sequential access to the hard drive is the problem of your performance.

Since you don't run a "true" database, but you ship the data to the customer in a desktop application, a quick solution would be to de-normalize and add a redundant field "cast_data" on Movie, with all your needed data as a JSON. Updating such a structure will be difficult if performed in any other way than on movie (for example update the birthday of a cast), but data will be retrieved very fast, no matter the storage.

Improve this answer
0

A few questions/observations:

  1. Why are you sorting the result on cast_info.movie_id when the WHERE clause only allows for a single movie_id?
  2. Likewise, why are you returning the movie_id in the result: it is going to be the same in every row.

Try creating a composite index on cast_info(movie_id, person_id).

I expect that would be much, much better.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.