We are having a database design where we have table on which we have 1 Day Interval Partitioning on the column named as "5mintime" and on the same column we have created index also.
"5mintime" column can have data such as 1-Mar-2011,2-Mar-2011, in short there is no time component in it and from the UI also the user can select only one day period as minimum date.
My question is that while firing the select queries is there any advantage gained because of indexes since the partition is already there, on the flip side if i remove the indexes the insertion will be come faster, so any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
If I understand you right, then I think there's no need for the index:
A local index is indexed for every partition, which in your case has the same value in all rows (ie: 1-Mar-2011 in the 1-Mar-2011 partition, 2-Mar-2011 in the 2-Mar-2011 partiotion and so on).
A global Index will actually index the whole table but will find a whole partiotion, which is also not usefull since you already have partiones ...
But, why not check it?
If each day's data goes into its own partition and you can never search within days, but only for entire days worth of data, then, no, I don't see this index adding any value.
You can confirm whether or not SQL queries are using this index by enabling monitoring:
alter index myindex monitoring usage;
And then check to see if it's been used by querying v$object_usage for it some time later.
Related
I've got a 3GB SQLite database file with a single table with 40 million rows and 14 fields (mostly integers and very short strings and one longer string), no indexes or keys or other constraints -- so really nothing fancy. I want to check if there are entries where a specific integer field has a specific value. So of course I'm using
SELECT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM FooTable WHERE barField=?)
I haven't got much experience with SQLite and databases in general and on my first test query, I was shocked that this simple query took about 30 seconds. Subsequent tests showed that it is much faster if a matching row occurs at the beginning, which of course makes sense.
Now I'm thinking of doing an initial SELECT DISTINCT barField FROM FooTable at application startup, and caching the results in software. But I'm sure there must be a cleaner SQLite way to do this, I mean, that should be part of what a DBMS's job right?
But so far, I've only created primary keys for speeding up queries, which doesn't work here because the field values are non-unique. So how can I speed up this query so that it works at constant time? (It doesn't have to be lightning fast, I'd be completely fine if it was under one second.)
Thanks in advance for answering!
P.S. Oh, and there will be about 500K new rows every month for an indefinite period of time, and it would be great if that doesn't significantly increase query time.
Adding an index on barField should speed up the subquery inside the EXISTS clause:
CREATE INDEX barIdx ON FooTable (barField);
To satisfy the query, SQLite would only have to seek the index once and detect that there is at least one matching value.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but do i need to reindex my table every time i insert rows, or does the new row get indexed when added?
From the manual
Once an index is created, no further intervention is required: the system will update the index when the table is modified
http://postgresguide.com/performance/indexes.html
I think when you insert rows, the index does get updated. It maintains the sort on the index table as you insert data. Hence there are performance issues or downtimes on a table, if you try adding large number of rows at once.
On top of the other answers: PostgreSQL is a top notch Relational Database. I'm not aware of any Relational Database system where indices are not updated automatically.
It seems to depend on the type of index. For example, according to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/brin-intro.html, for BRIN indexes:
When a new page is created that does not fall within the last summarized range, that range does not automatically acquire a summary tuple; those tuples remain unsummarized until a summarization run is invoked later, creating initial summaries. This process can be invoked manually using the brin_summarize_new_values(regclass) function, or automatically when VACUUM processes the table.
Although this seems to have changed in version 10.
Is it a good practice to have multiple index for same column in a table?
Eg. There is table A with column col1,col2,col3,col4,col5,col6
Indexes
Index1 on (col1,col2,col3)
Index2 on (col4,col2,col6)
Index3 on (col2,col1,col3,col4,col5)
In this case col1,col2,col3 are part of more than one index for the table A. Is it not enough to have each column part of single index?
What is the use of having same column in multiple index. please clarify.
It depends;)
In a lot of cases it's very usefull to have several indexes containing the same column.
See also this article at Ask Tom:
Column order in Index
Whether an index helps depends a lot on your data and your query. Especially percentage of records, your query returns, is important.
The following sample is a little bit simplified, but in general it's how the system works:
Imagine, your database stores 10 records on each database block and your query has to return 10% of all records. In this case every 10th record has to be returned. In the worst case, you have to read every database block (full table scan). In this case an Index will slow down the query because you have to read the index additionally.
There are different opinions when to use an Index. My rule of thumb is this:
If 1% or less is selected, then an Index is good
If 10% or more is selected, then a full table scan is good
else (1%-9%) a more detailed analysis is required
In Oracle are indexes used when an UPDATE is fired without a WHERE clause
By "used", do you mean "referred to" or "modified"?
An UPDATE without a WHERE clause boils down to an iteration over the entire table; I see no good reason why Oracle should refer to an index in this case, as there's no benefit to be had from that. (Although that's little more than a qualified guess.) nonnb is right that the index will be affected depending on what column you touch.
If you update affects indexed columns, then the index pages will need to be replaced as well.
Will Oracle use the index to find the rows being updated? With no where clause, almost certainly not.
Will Oracle have to read one or more indexes, getting blocks in consistent mode to update them? If you're updating any columns that are indexed, have function-based indexes which will result in an updated indexed value, or cause row movement among partitions, then yes, indexes "will be used."
Is there any way to force oracle to use index except Hints?
No. And if the optimizer doesn't use the index, it usually has a good reason for it. Index usage, if the index is poor, can actually slow your queries down.
Oracle doesn't use an index when it thinks the index is
disabled
invalid (for example, after a huge data load and the statistics about the index haven't been updated)
won't help (for example, when there are only two different values in 5 million rows)
So the first thing to check is that the index is enabled, then run the correct GATHER command on your index/table/schema. When that doesn't help, Oracle thinks that loading your index will actually take more time than loading the actual row values. In this case, add more columns to the index to make it appear more "diverse".
You might take a look at oracle stored outlines. You can take an existing query and create a stored outline and tweak the query just like hints. It is just very hard to use. Do some research before you decide to implement stored outlines.
You can add hints into the query that will cause it to look more favorably on one index over another index.
In general if you have collected good statistics on all the tables and indexes Oracle usually implements very good execution plans.
If your query doesn't include the indexed field in its conditions, then the DB would be foolish to use the index. Thus, I second Donnie's answer.
Yes, technically, you can force Oracle to use an index (without hints), in one scenario: if the table is an index-organized table, then logically the only way to query the table is via its index because there is no table to query.