为什么 MySQL 在这里并不总是使用索引合并?-数据库问题

Why does MySQL not always use index merge here?(为什么 MySQL 在这里并不总是使用索引合并?)

本文介绍了为什么 MySQL 在这里并不总是使用索引合并?的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！

问题描述

考虑这张表:

CREATE TABLE `Alarms` (
  `AlarmId` INT(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `DeviceId` BINARY(16) NOT NULL,
  `Code` BIGINT(20) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
  `Ended` TINYINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `NaturalEnd` TINYINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `Pinned` TINYINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `Acknowledged` TINYINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `StartedAt` TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `EndedAt` TIMESTAMP NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarkedForDeletion` TINYINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`AlarmId`),
  KEY `Key1` (`Ended`,`Acknowledged`),
  KEY `Key2` (`Pinned`),
  KEY `Key3` (`DeviceId`,`Pinned`),
  KEY `Key4` (`DeviceId`,`StartedAt`,`EndedAt`),
  KEY `Key5` (`DeviceId`,`Ended`,`EndedAt`),
  KEY `Key6` (`MarkedForDeletion`)
) ENGINE=INNODB;

并且，对于这个测试，像这样填充它:

And, for this test, populate it like so:

-- Populate some dummy data; 500 alarms for each
-- of 1000 one-second periods
SET @testDevice = UNHEX('00030000000000000000000000000000');

DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS `injectAlarms`;
DELIMITER ;;
CREATE PROCEDURE injectAlarms()
BEGIN
    SET @fromdate  = '2018-02-18 00:00:00';
    SET @numdates  = 1000;
    SET @todate    = DATE_ADD(@fromdate, INTERVAL @numdates SECOND);

    -- Create table of alarm codes to join on
    DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `__codes`;
    CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE `__codes` (
        `Code` BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
    );

    SET @startcode = 0;
    SET @endcode   = 499;

    REPEAT
       INSERT INTO `__codes` VALUES(@startcode);
       SET @startcode = @startcode + 1;
    UNTIL @startcode > @endcode END REPEAT;

    -- Add an alarm for each code, for each second in range
    REPEAT
        INSERT INTO `Alarms`
            (`DeviceId`, `Code`, `Ended`, `NaturalEnd`, `Pinned`, `Acknowledged`, `StartedAt`, `EndedAt`)
            SELECT
                @testDevice,
                `Code`,
                TRUE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE,
                @fromdate, @fromdate
            FROM `__codes`;

        SET @fromdate = DATE_ADD(@fromdate, INTERVAL 1 SECOND);
    UNTIL @fromdate > @todate END REPEAT;
END;;
DELIMITER ;

CALL injectAlarms();

现在，对于某些数据集，以下查询运行良好:

Now, for some datasets the following query works quite well:

SELECT * FROM `Alarms`
WHERE
   ((`Alarms`.`Ended` = FALSE AND `Alarms`.`Acknowledged` = FALSE) OR `Alarms`.`Pinned` = TRUE) AND
   `MarkedForDeletion` = FALSE AND
   `DeviceId` = @testDevice
;

这是因为 MariaDB 足够聪明，可以使用索引合并，例如:

This is because MariaDB is clever enough to use index merges, e.g.:

id    select_type    table    type         possible_keys                 
1     SIMPLE         Alarms   index_merge  Key1,Key2,Key3,Key4,Key5,Key6 

key             key_len  ref     rows     Extra
Key1,Key2,Key3  2,1,17   (NULL)  2        Using union(Key1,intersect(Key2,Key3)); Using where

但是，如果我使用上述过程填充的数据集，并稍微翻转查询(这是我需要的另一个视图，但在这种情况下会返回更多行):

However if I use the dataset as populated by the procedure above, and flip the query around a bit (which is another view I need, but in this case will return many more rows):

SELECT * FROM `Alarms`
WHERE
  ((`Alarms`.`Ended` = TRUE OR `Alarms`.`Acknowledged` = TRUE) AND `Alarms`.`Pinned` = FALSE) AND
   `MarkedForDeletion` = FALSE AND
   `DeviceId` = @testDevice
;

…它没有:

… it doesn't:

id    select_type    table    type   possible_keys
1     SIMPLE         Alarms   ref    Key1,Key2,Key3,Key4,Key5,Key6

key   key_len  ref     rows     Extra
Key2  1        const  144706    Using where

我希望索引合并更频繁地发生.事实上，鉴于 ref=const，这个查询计划看起来并不太吓人 …但是，查询需要将近一秒钟的时间才能运行.这本身并不是世界末日，但是当我尝试一个更奇特的查询时，我的设计的可扩展性很差，这需要非常很长时间:

I would rather like the index merges to happen more often. As it is, given the ref=const, this query plan doesn't look too scary … however, the query takes almost a second to run. That in itself isn't the end of the world, but the poorly-scaling nature of my design shows when trying a more exotic query, which takes a very long time:

-- Create a temporary table that we'll join against in a mo
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `_ranges`;
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE `_ranges` (
    `Start` TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
    `End`   TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
    PRIMARY KEY(`Start`, `End`)
);

-- Populate it (in reality this is performed by my application layer)
SET @endtime = 1518992216;
SET @starttime = @endtime - 86400;
SET @inter = 900;
DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS `populateRanges`;
DELIMITER ;;
CREATE PROCEDURE populateRanges()
BEGIN
REPEAT
    INSERT IGNORE INTO `_ranges` VALUES(FROM_UNIXTIME(@starttime),FROM_UNIXTIME(@starttime + @inter));
    SET @starttime = @starttime + @inter;
UNTIL @starttime > @endtime END REPEAT;
END;;
DELIMITER ;
CALL populateRanges();

-- Actual query
SELECT UNIX_TIMESTAMP(`_ranges`.`Start`) AS `Start_TS`,
COUNT(`Alarms`.`AlarmId`) AS `n`
FROM `_ranges`
LEFT JOIN `Alarms`
ON `Alarms`.`StartedAt` < `_ranges`.`End`
  AND (`Alarms`.`EndedAt` IS NULL OR `Alarms`.`EndedAt` >= `_ranges`.`Start`)

  AND ((`Alarms`.`EndedAt` IS NULL AND `Alarms`.`Acknowledged` = FALSE) OR `Alarms`.`Pinned` = TRUE)
-- Again, the above condition is sometimes replaced by:
-- AND ((`Alarms`.`EndedAt` IS NOT NULL OR `Alarms`.`Acknowledged` = TRUE) AND `Alarms`.`Pinned` = FALSE)

 AND `DeviceId` = @testDevice
 AND `MarkedForDeletion` = FALSE
 GROUP BY `_ranges`.`Start`

(此查询应该收集每个时间片的计数列表，每个计数表示有多少警报的 [StartedAt,EndedAt] 范围与该时间片相交.结果填充折线图.)

(This query is supposed to gather a list of counts per time slice, each count indicating how many alarms' [StartedAt,EndedAt] range intersects that time slice. The result populates a line graph.)

再一次，当我设计这些表并且其中没有多少行时，索引合并似乎使所有内容都运转起来.但现在不是这样:使用 injectAlarms() 中给出的数据集，这需要 40 秒 才能完成！

Again, when I designed these tables and there weren't many rows in them, index merges seemed to make everything whiz along. But now not so: with the dataset as given in injectAlarms(), this takes 40 seconds to complete!

我在添加 MarkedForDeletion 列并执行我的第一个大型数据集规模测试时注意到了这一点.这就是为什么我对索引的选择不会因为 MarkedForDeletion 的存在而产生重大影响，尽管如果我删除 AND MarkedForDeletion = FALSE，上述结果是相同的根据我的查询；但是，我保留了条件，因为最终我需要它在那里.

I noticed this when adding the MarkedForDeletion column and performing some of my first large-dataset scale tests. This is why my choice of indexes doesn't make a big deal out of the presence of MarkedForDeletion, though the results described above are the same if I remove AND MarkedForDeletion = FALSE from my queries; however, I've kept the condition in, as ultimately I will need it to be there.

我尝试了一些 USE INDEX/FORCE INDEX 组合，但结果似乎从未使用索引合并.

I've tried a few USE INDEX/FORCE INDEX combinations, but it never seems to use index merge as a result.

我可以定义哪些索引以使该表在给定情况下快速运行?或者我该如何重组我的查询以实现相同的目标?

(以上查询计划在 MariaDB 5.5.56/CentOS 7 上获得，但解决方案也必须在 MySQL 5.1.73/CentOS 6 上运行.)