Speed up data comparison in powershell acquired via Import-CSV - performance

Simple question, but tough problem.
I have 2 CSV files exported from Excel, one with 65k rows and one with about 50k. I need to merge the data from those 2 files based on that condition :
where File1.Username -eq File2.Username
Note that the datatype for the username property in both files is this :
IsPublic IsSerial Name BaseType
-------- -------- ---- --------
True True String System.Object
And obviously looping through 65k x 50k objects properties to compare takes..well, 1 day and 23 hours as I estimated when I measured a script run on only 10 rows.
I am considering several solutions at this point, like splitting the CSV files and running different portions in different powershell sessions simultaneously while giving real time priority to powershell.exe but that's cumbersome, and I haven't tested that option so I can't report on the real gain of performance.
I wondered if I should change the datatype rather, and use for instance .ToString.GetHashCode() but I tried that option too and oddly enough the execution time was quicker when comparing string VS string than hash sum integer VS hash sum integer.
So long story short, I am looking for a superfast way to compare 65k x 50k string variables.
Any help would be greatly appreciated :)
Thanks!
Elaborating example:
Ok here's a metaphorical example. Suppose you have a database containing the names and equipment of astronauts (SPACE), and another one containing the names and equipment of
marine explorers(OCEAN).
So in the SPACE dataset you'll have for instance:
First Name,Last name, Username, space gear,environment.
And then the first row of data would be like :
Neil,Armstrong,Stretch,spacesuit,moon
In the OCEAN Dataset you'd have :
First Name,Last name, Username, birthdate, diving gear,environment
with the following data:
Jacques,Cousteau,Jyc,1910-06-11,diving suit,ocean
Now suppose that at some point Neil Armstrong had himself registered to a diving course and was added the the OCEAN dataset.
In the OCEAN Dataset you'd now have :
First Name,Last name, Username, birthdate, diving gear,environment
with the following data:
Jacques,Cousteau,Jyc,1910-06-11,diving suit,ocean
Neil,Armstrong,Stretch,1930-08-05,diving suit,ocean
The person who handed me the data over gave me a third dataset which was a "mix" of the other 2 :
In the MIXED Dataset you'd now have :
Dataset,First Name,Last name, Username, birthdate, diving gear, space gear,environment
with the following data:
ocean,Jacques,Cousteau,Jyc,1910-06-11,diving suit,,ocean
space,Neil,Armstrong,Stretch,1930-08-05,,space suit,moon
ocean,Neil,Armstrong,Stretch,1930-08-05,diving suit,,ocean
So my task is to make the dataset MIXED looking like this:
First Name,Last name, Username, birthdate, diving gear, space gear,environment
Jacques,Cousteau,Jyc,1910-06-11,diving suit,,ocean
Neil,Armstrong,Stretch,1930-08-05,diving suit,space suit,(moon,ocean)
And to top it all off, there's a couple of profoundly stupid scenarios that can happen:
1) A same guy could be in either SPACE Dataset or OCEAN Dataset more than once, but with different usernames.
2) Two completely different users could share the same username in the SPACE Dataset, but NOT in the OCEAN Dataset.User names there are unique. Yes, you read that correctly, both Cousteau and Armstrong could potentially have the same username.
I've indeed already looked at the possibility of having the data cleaned up a little bit before getting my teeth stuck in that task, but that's not possible.
I have to take the context as it is, can't change anything.
So the first thing I did was to segregate the number of records for the username field, Group-Object -Property Username, and my work was focused on the cases were a given user was, like Neil Armstrong, in both datasets.
When there is only 1 record, like Cousteau, it's straight forward, I leave it as it is. When there's one record in each dataset I need to merge data, and when there is more than 2 records for one username then it's fair to say that it is a complete mess, although I don't mind leaving those as they are just now (especially because thousands of records have a [string]::IsNullOrEmpty($Username) = $true so they count as a number greater than 2 records..)
I hope it makes more sense?
At the moment I want to focus on the cases where a given username is showing up once in both SPACE and OCEAN datasets, I know its not complicated but the algorithm I am using makes the whole process super slow :
0 - Create an empty array
1 - Get rows from SPACE dataset
2 - Get rows from OCEAN dataset
3 - Create a hashtable containing the properties of both datasets where properties aren't empty
4 - Create a psobject to encapsulate the hashtable
5 - Add that object to the array
And that is taking ages because I am talking about 65k records in SPACE and about 50k records in OCEAN.
SO I was wondering if there's a better way of doing this?
Thanks !

Related

Neo4j query with condition on concatenated string is very slow

I have Person nodes with basic string fields such (firstName,lastName, fatherName,motherName) and trying to link nodes based on those fields.
A simple query where I compare motherName to concatenation of first name and last name such as
match(p1:Person) match (p2:Person) where p1.motherName=p2.firstName+' '+ p2.lastName return p1,p2 limit 500
takes around 1 hour , (removing ' ' from the concatenation does not make a difference ). Using match(p1:Person),(p2:Person) also makes no difference
While if comparing exact fields such as
match(p1:Person) match (p2:Person) where p1.motherName=p2.firstName return p1,p2 limit 500
only takes a few seconds.
I have noticed something peculiar regarding transaction memory which is that in the first query the estimatedUsedHeapMemory is always 2097152 and currentQueryAllocatedBytes is 64,
but I see the database is consuming around 7.5 GB of memory.
When running the 2nd query, the numbers for memory used for the heap and query are much bigger. Could it be that something special is causing the query to not be able to use as much memory as it needs as thus is slow?
I had successfully ran a query on all the data to link persons and fathers, that matches on exact fields, which took 2.5 hours. while the query for the mothers which needs to compare concatenated strings was still running after 9 hours with no result.
Query for father linking, which was successful.
CALL apoc.periodic.iterate(
"match (p1:Person) match(p2:Person) where p1.fatherName=p2.firstName and p1.lastName=p2.lastName and p1.dateOfBirth>p2.dateOfBirth return p1,p2",
"MERGE (p1)-[:CHILD_OF {parentRelationship:'FATHER'}]->(p2)",
{batchSize:5000})
I have 4 million nodes, my db size is 3.14 gb , these are my memory settings
NEO4J_server_memory_heap_max__size=5G
NEO4J_server_memory_heap_initial__size=5G
NEO4J_server_memory_pagecache_size=7G
I have tried to first the fast query on the data, so that it could load the data in the memory.
I tried concatenating without '', nothing helps.
I previously had a range index on firstname, which caused the father's query to also be super slow and also have the limit on used memory, I had to drop it in order to get that query to work
Below are my suggestions:
Index the field dateOfBirth on Person node.
String comparison always slows down when there is a large set of data. To compare strings directly try using apoc.util.md5() https://neo4j.com/labs/apoc/4.0/overview/apoc.util/apoc.util.md5/
This produces the hash value of the string passed which makes the comparison fast. So your query will be
CALL apoc.periodic.iterate( "match (p1:Person) match(p2:Person) where apoc.util.md5([p1.fatherName]) = apoc.util.md5([p2.firstName]) and apoc.util.md5([p1.lastName]) = apoc.util.md5([p2.lastName]) and p1.dateOfBirth > p2.dateOfBirth return p1,p2", "MERGE (p1)-[:CHILD_OF {parentRelationship:'FATHER'}]->(p2)", {batchSize:5000})
Hope this helps!

Camel + CassandraQL : Process a table without putting all in memory

Goal: read a big Cassandra table, process line by line in parallel
Constraints:
not all rows in memory
no Spark, we have to use Camel
One shot, no need polling the table
I did a first working version with CassandraQL but this Component seems to be limited to one query with all in memory, I did not find mechanics like fetSize/fetchMoreResult. I looked CassandraProducer class, PollingConsumerPollingStrategy, ResultSetConversionStrategy... See nothing.
Could it be possible to read a table by chunks of 1000 elements for example, each chunk would generate an exchange lately split in different threads ?
I think that maybe the ProducerTemplate injecting first exchanges in the route could be the answer. But I don't undertand how I could manage the production exchange rate to avoid to have too many rows in memory (to do so, we would need for example to check the size of the next blocking queue, if more than X no consumed elements, wait before producing more messages).
Maybe there are other options to do something like this ?
Maybe I did not see the magic parameter in CassandraQL ?
Maybe we can override some parts of CassandraQL ?
Thank you
This is not going to be answer to be a your question but hope to kick off some discussion. But as someone learning Cassandra and spending bit of time, it made me thinking. And mainly targets fetSize/fetchMoreResult part of the question
First of all, two of your constraints are contradicting
Not all rows in memory
I don't want all them fetched at once
One shot, no need polling the partition
I don't want to go back to db more than once.
Unless what you actually you meant is
Not all rows in memory
I don't want all them fetched at once
You can go back to partition many times, as long as you go back straight to where you left it last time.
As long as the time it takes for the first page is same as time it takes for the second page. And the time it takes for the 19th Page is same as the time it takes for the 20th page.
i.e Not starting from the first row
So I am going to assume that what you meant is Second Scenario and go with it.
Queries for Cassandra are going to satisfy the following two:
They are going to have a restriction on clustering columns
They are already ordered by clustering columns
Now Consider the following table
department(partition key), firstName(clustering_key), personId(clustering_key), lastname, etc as normal cols
First query
select department, firstName, lastname, etc
from person
where department = 'depart1`
order by firstName ASC
limit 25;
Second query (lets say last record in the page had userId=25 and firstName=kavi)
select department, firstName, lastname, etc
from person
where department = 'depart1` and firstName='kavi' and userId > 25
order by firstName ASC
limit 25;
As you can see, we can easily construct a Cassandra query that brings each chunk with certain size in constant time.
Now back to integration framework
I remember this concept called watermark in mule where the endpoint can store and remember so that they can start from there next time. In this case, value of userId and firstName of the last record of the last page is the watermark. So they can issue the second. I am sure we should be able to do the same with camel
I hope I have convinced that polling is not an issue where each chunk is retrieved in constant time

how to improve Neo4J performance in creating edges?

i'm building a traffic schedule application using Neo4J, NodeJS and GTFS-data; currently, i'm trying to get
things working for the traffic on a single day on the Berlin subway network. these are the grand totals
i've collected so far:
10 routes
211 stops
4096 trips
83322 stoptimes
to put it simply, GTFS (General Transit Feed Specification) has the concept of a stoptime which denotes the
event of a given train or bus stopping for passengers to board and alight. stoptimes happen on a trip,
which is a series of stoptimes, they happen on a specific date and time, and they happen on a given
stop for a given route (or 'line') in a transit network. so there's a lot of references here.
the problem i'm running into is the amount of data and the time it takes to build the database. in order
to speed up things, i've already (1) cut down the data to a single day, (2) deleted the database files
and have the server create a fresh one (very effective!), (3) searched a lot to get better queries. alas,
with the figures as given above, it still takes 30~50 minutes to get all the edges of the graph.
these are the indexes i'm building:
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (n:trip) ASSERT n.id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (n:stop) ASSERT n.id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (n:route) ASSERT n.id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (n:stoptime) ASSERT n.id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE INDEX ON :trip(`route-id`);
CREATE INDEX ON :stop(`name`);
CREATE INDEX ON :stoptime(`trip-id`);
CREATE INDEX ON :stoptime(`stop-id`);
CREATE INDEX ON :route(`name`);
i'd guess the unique primary keys should be most important.
and here are the queries that take up like 80% of the running time (with 10% that are unrelated to Neo4J,
and 10% needed to feed the node data using plain HTTP post requests):
MATCH (trip:`trip`), (route:`route`)
WHERE trip.`route-id` = route.id
CREATE UNIQUE (trip)-[:`trip/route` {`~label`: 'trip/route'}]-(route);
MATCH (stoptime:`stoptime`), (trip:`trip`)
WHERE stoptime.`trip-id` = trip.id
CREATE UNIQUE (trip)-[:`trip/stoptime` {`~label`: 'trip/stoptime'}]-(stoptime);
MATCH (stoptime:`stoptime`), (stop:`stop`)
WHERE stoptime.`stop-id` = stop.id
CREATE UNIQUE (stop)-[:`stop/stoptime` {`~label`: 'stop/stoptime'}]-(stoptime);
MATCH (a:stoptime), (b:stoptime)
WHERE a.`trip-id` = b.`trip-id`
AND ( a.idx + 1 = b.idx OR a.idx - 1 = b.idx )
CREATE UNIQUE (a)-[:linked]-(b);
MATCH (stop1:stop)-->(a:stoptime)-[:next]->(b:stoptime)-->(stop2:stop)
CREATE UNIQUE (stop1)-[:distance {`~label`: 'distance', value: 0}]-(stop2);
the first query is still in the range of some minutes which i find longish given that there are only
thousands (not hundreds of thousands or millions) of trips in the database. the subsequent queries that
involve stoptimes take several ten minutes each on my desktop machine.
(i've also calculated whether the schedule really contains 83322 stoptimes each day, and yes, it's plausible:
in Berlin, subway trains run on 10 lines for 20 hours a day with 6 or 12 trips per hour, and there are 173
subway stations: 10 lines x 2 directions x 17.3 stops per line x 20 hours x 9 trips per hour gives 62280,
close enough. there are some faulty? / double / extra stop nodes in the data (211
stops instead of 173), but those are few.)
frankly, if i don't find a way to speed up things at least tenfold (rather more), it'll make little sense to use Neo4J
for this project. just in order to cover the single city of Berlin many, many more stoptimes have to be added,
as the subway is just a tiny fraction of the overall public transport here (e.g. bus and tramway have like
170 routes with 7,000 stops, so expect around 7,000,000 stoptimes each day).
Update the above edge creation queries, which i perform one by one, have now been running for over an hour and not yet finished, meaning that—if things scale in a linear fashion—the time needed to feed the Berlin public transport data for a single day would consume something like a week. therefore, the code currently performs several orders of magnitude too slow to be viable.
Update #MichaelHunger's solution did work; see my response below.
I just imported 12M nodes and 12M rels into Neo4j in 10 minutes using LOAD CSV.
You should see your issues when you run profiling on your queries in the shell.
Prefix your query with profile and look a the profile output if it mentions to use the index or rather just label-scan.
Do you use parameters for your insert queries? So that Neo4j can re-use built queries?
For queries like this:
MATCH (trip:`trip`), (route:`route`)
WHERE trip.`route-id` = route.id
CREATE UNIQUE (trip)-[:`trip/route` {`~label`: 'trip/route'}]-(route);
It will very probably not use your index.
Can you perhaps point to your datasource? We can convert it into CSV if it isn't and then import even more quickly.
Perhaps we can create a graph gist for your model?
I would rather use:
MATCH (route:`route`)
MATCH (trip:`trip` {`route-id` = route.id)
CREATE (trip)-[:`trip/route` {`~label`: 'trip/route'}]-(route);
For your initial import you also don't need create unique as you match every trip only once.
And I'm not sure what your "~label" is good for?
Similar for your other queries.
As the data is public it would be cool to work together on this.
Something I'd love to hear more about is how you plan do express your query use-cases.
I had a really great discussion about timetables for public transport with training attendees last time in Leipzig. You can also email me on michael at neo4j.org
Also perhaps you want to check out these links:
Tramchester
http://www.thoughtworks.com/de/insights/blog/transforming-travel-and-transport-industry-one-graph-time
http://de.slideshare.net/neo4j/graph-connect-v5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvECxOhEX0
London Tube Graph
http://blog.bruggen.com/2013/11/meet-this-tubular-graph.html
http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2014/03/03/neo4j-2-1-0-m01-load-csv-with-rik-van-bruggens-tube-graph/
http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2014/02/13/neo4j-value-in-relationships-but-value-in-nodes-too/
detailed solution
i'm happy to report that #MichaelHunger's solution works like a charm. i modified the edge-building queries
from the question with the below shapes that keep to the suggested query outline:
MATCH (route:`route`)
MATCH (trip:`trip` {`route-id`: route.id})
CREATE (trip)-[:`trip/route` {`~label`: 'trip/route'}]->(route)
MATCH (trip:`trip`)
MATCH (stoptime:`stoptime` {`trip-id`: trip.id})
CREATE (trip)-[:`trip/stoptime` {`~label`: 'trip/stoptime'}]->(stoptime)
MATCH (stop:`stop`)
MATCH (stoptime:`stoptime` {`stop-id`: stop.id})
CREATE (stop)-[:`stop/stoptime` {`~label`: 'stop/stoptime'}]->(stoptime)
MATCH (a:stoptime)
MATCH (b:stoptime {`trip-id`: a.`trip-id`, `idx`: a.idx + 1})
CREATE (a)-[:linked {`~label`: 'linked'}]->(b)
MATCH (stop1:stop)--(a:stoptime)-[:linked]-(b:stoptime)--(stop2:stop)
CREATE (stop1)-[:distance {`~label`: 'distance', value: 0}]->(stop2)
as can be seen, the trick here is to give each participating node a MATCH statement of its own and to
move the WHERE clause inside the second match condition; presumably, as mentioned above, Neo4J can only
then take advantage of its indexes.
with these queries in place, the process of reading in nodes and building edges takes roughly 13 minutes;
of these 13 minutes, fetching the data from an external source, building the node representations and issuing CREATE queries
takes about 10 minutes, and building almost a half million edges between them is done in about 3 minutes.
right now none of my queries (especially the node CREATE statements and updates for stop distances) use
parametrized queries, which is another potential source for performance gains.
as for the ~label field and also the question why i use dahes in names where underscores would be more
convenient, well, that's a long story about what i perceive good and practical naming that sometimes clashes
with the syntax of some languages (of most languages, should i say). but that's boring detail. maybe more
intersting is the question: why is there a ~label attribute that repeats what the element label says (what
you write after the colon)? well, it's an attempt to comply with Neo4J conventions (we use labels here), take
advantage of the 'identifier, colon, label' syntax of cypher queries, AND to make it so the labels do
appear in the returned values.
mind you, labels are so central to graph thinking the Neo4J way, but *in query results, labels are
conspicuously absent. when you include a relationship that is marked with nothing but a label in your result set,
then that edge will arrive as an empty
object, telling you only that there is something but not what. so i decided i to duplicate the
label on each single node and each single edge. not an optimal solution but at least now i get an informative
graph display in the Neo4J browser.
as for how to express query use-cases, that's an active field of reserach for me right now. i guess it will
all start with a 'field of interest', like 'show all Berlin subway stops', or 'all busses departing within
the next 15 minutes from a bus stop near me'. the data already allows to see which stops are directly connected
by a subway line, their geographical distance, what services are present and what routes they take. the idea
is to grab the data and present them in novel, usable and beatiful ways. 9292 is quite
close to what i imagine; what's missing are graphical representations of spatial and temporal relationships.

Cassandra DB: is it favorable, or frowned upon, to index multiple criteria per row?

I've been doing a lot of reading lately on Cassandra, and specifically how to structure rows to take advantage of indexing/sorting, but there is one thing I am still unclear on; how many "index" items (or filters if you will) should you include in a column family (CF) row?
Specifically: I am building an app and will be using Cassandra to archive log data, which I will use for analytics.
Example types of analytic searches will include (by date range):
total visits to specific site section
total visits by Country
traffic source
I plan to store the whole log object in JSON format, but to avoid having to go through each item to get basic data, or to create multiple CF just to get basic data, I am curious to know if it's a good idea to include these above "filters" as columns (compound column segment)?
Example:
Row Key | timeUUID:data | timeUUID:country | timeUUID:source |
======================================================
timeUUID:section | JSON Object | USA | example.com |
So as you can see from the structure, the row key would be a compound key of timeUUID (say per day) plus the site section I want to get stats for. This lets me query a date range quite easily.
Next, my dilemma, the columns. Compound column name with timeUUID lets me sort & do a time based slice, but does the concept make sense?
Is this type of structure acceptable by the current "best practice", or would it be frowned upon? Would it be advisable to create a separate "index" CF for each metric I want to query on? (even when it's as simple as this?)
I would rather get this right the first time instead of having to restructure the data and refactor my application code later.
I think the idea behind this is OK. It's a pretty common way of doing timeslicing (assuming I've understood your schema anyway - a create table snippet would be great). Some minor tweaks ...
You don't need a timeUUID as your row key. Given that you suggest partitioning by individual days (which are inherently unique) you don't need a UUID aspect. A timestamp is probably fine, or even simpler a varchar in the format YYYYMMDD (or whatever arrangement you prefer).
You will probably also want to swap your row key composition around to section:time. The reason for this is that if you need to specify an IN clause (i.e. to grab multiple days) you can only do it on the last part of the key. This means you can do WHERE section = 'foo' and time IN (....). I imagine that's a more common use case - but the decision is obviously yours.
If your common case is querying the most recent data don't forget to cluster your timeUUID columns in descending order. This keeps the hot columns at the head.
Double storing content is fine (i.e. once for the JSON payload, and denormalised again for data you need to query). Storage is cheap.
I don't think you need indexes, but it depends on the queries you intend to run. If your queries are simple then you may want to store counters by (date:parameter) instead of values and just increment them as data comes in.

Improve SQL Server 2005 Query Performance

I have a course search engine and when I try to do a search, it takes too long to show search results. You can try to do a search here
http://76.12.87.164/cpd/testperformance.cfm
At that page you can also see the database tables and indexes, if any.
I'm not using Stored Procedures - the queries are inline using Coldfusion.
I think I need to create some indexes but I'm not sure what kind (clustered, non-clustered) and on what columns.
Thanks
You need to create indexes on columns that appear in your WHERE clauses. There are a few exceptions to that rule:
If the column only has one or two unique values (the canonical example of this is "gender" - with only "Male" and "Female" the possible values, there is no point to an index here). Generally, you want an index that will be able to restrict the rows that need to be processed by a significant number (for example, an index that only reduces the search space by 50% is not worth it, but one that reduces it by 99% is).
If you are search for x LIKE '%something' then there is no point for an index. If you think of an index as specifying a particular order for rows, then sorting by x if you're searching for "%something" is useless: you're going to have to scan all rows anyway.
So let's take a look at the case where you're searching for "keyword 'accounting'". According to your result page, the SQL that this generates is:
SELECT
*
FROM (
SELECT TOP 10
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY sq.name) AS Row,
sq.*
FROM (
SELECT
c.*,
p.providername,
p.school,
p.website,
p.type
FROM
cpd_COURSES c, cpd_PROVIDERS p
WHERE
c.providerid = p.providerid AND
c.activatedYN = 'Y' AND
(
c.name like '%accounting%' OR
c.title like '%accounting%' OR
c.keywords like '%accounting%'
)
) sq
) AS temp
WHERE
Row >= 1 AND Row <= 10
In this case, I will assume that cpd_COURSES.providerid is a foreign key to cpd_PROVIDERS.providerid in which case you don't need an index, because it'll already have one.
Additionally, the activatedYN column is a T/F column and (according to my rule above about restricting the possible values by only 50%) a T/F column should not be indexed, either.
Finally, because searching with a x LIKE '%accounting%' query, you don't need an index on name, title or keywords either - because it would never be used.
So the main thing you need to do in this case is make sure that cpd_COURSES.providerid actually is a foreign key for cpd_PROVIDERS.providerid.
SQL Server Specific
Because you're using SQL Server, the Management Studio has a number of tools to help you decide where you need to put indexes. If you use the "Index Tuning Wizard" it is actually usually pretty good at tell you what will give you the good performance improvements. You just cut'n'paste your query into it, and it'll come back with recommendations for indexes to add.
You still need to be a little bit careful with the indexes that you add, because the more indexes you have, the slower INSERTs and UPDATEs will be. So sometimes you'll need to consolidate indexes, or just ignore them altogether if they don't give enough of a performance benefit. Some judgement is required.
Is this the real live database data? 52,000 records is a very small table, relatively speaking, for what SQL 2005 can deal with.
I wonder how much RAM is allocated to the SQL server, or what sort of disk the database is on. An IDE or even SATA hard disk can't give the same performance as a 15K RPM SAS disk, and it would be nice if there was sufficient RAM to cache the bulk of the frequently accessed data.
Having said all that, I feel the " (c.name like '%accounting%' OR c.title like '%accounting%' OR c.keywords like '%accounting%') " clause is problematic.
Could you create a separate Course_Keywords table, with two columns "courseid" and "keyword" (varchar(24) should be sufficient for the longest keyword?), with a composite clustered index on courseid+keyword
Then, to make the UI even more friendly, use AJAX to apply keyword validation & auto-completion when people type words into the keywords input field. This gives you the behind-the-scenes benefit of having an exact keyword to search for, removing the need for pattern-matching with the LIKE operator...
Using CF9? Try using Solr full text search instead of %xxx%?
You'll want to create indexes on the fields you search by. An index is a secondary list of your records presorted by the indexed fields.
Think of an old-fashioned printed yellow pages - if you want to look up a person by their last name, the phonebook is already sorted in that way - Last Name is the clustered index field. If you wanted to find phone numbers for people named Jennifer or the person with the phone number 867-5309, you'd have to search through every entry and it would take a long time. If there were an index in the back with all the phone numbers or first names listed in order along with the page in the phonebook that the person is listed, it would be a lot faster. These would be the unclustered indexes.
I would try changing your IN statements to an EXISTS query to see if you get better performance on the Zip code lookup. My experience is that IN statements work great for small lists but the larger they get, you get better performance out of EXISTS as the query engine will stop searching for a specific value the first instance it runs into.
<CFIF zipcodes is not "">
EXISTS (
SELECT zipcode
FROM cpd_CODES_ZIPCODES
WHERE zipcode = p.zipcode
AND 3963 * (ACOS((SIN(#getzipcodeinfo.latitude#/57.2958) * SIN(latitude/57.2958)) +
(COS(#getzipcodeinfo.latitude#/57.2958) * COS(latitude/57.2958) *
COS(longitude/57.2958 - #getzipcodeinfo.longitude#/57.2958)))) <= #radius#
)
</CFIF>

Resources