《數(shù)據(jù)庫系統(tǒng)》英文教學課件

《數(shù)據(jù)庫系統(tǒng)》英文教學課件,數(shù)據(jù)庫系統(tǒng),數(shù)據(jù)庫,系統(tǒng),英文,教學,課件 Physical Database Design and TuningR&G-Chapter 20Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream and the physical world nothing but a phantasm,I should call this dream or phantasm real enough,if,using reason well,we were never deceived by it.Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von LeibnizIntroductionWe have talked at length about“database design”Conceptual Schema:info to capture,tables,columns,views,etc.Physical Schema:indexes,clustering,etc.Physical design linked tightly to query optimizationWe must begin by understanding the workload:The most important queries and how often they arise.The most important updates and how often they arise.The desired performance for these queries and updates.Understanding the WorkloadFor each query in the workload:Which relations does it access?Which attributes are retrieved?Which attributes are involved in selection/join conditions?How selective are these conditions likely to be?For each update in the workload:Which attributes are involved in selection/join conditions?How selective are these conditions likely to be?The type of update(INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE),and the attributes that are affected.Creating an ISUD Chart Insert,Select,Update,Delete FrequenciesDecisions to MakeWhat indexes should we create?Which relations should have indexes?What field(s)should be the search key?Should we build several indexes?For each index,what kind of an index should it be?Clustered?Dynamic/static?Should we make changes to the conceptual schema?For example,denormalizeHorizontal partitioning,replication,views.Index SelectionOne approach:Consider most important queries in turn.Consider best plan using the current indexes,and see if better plan is possible with an additional index.If so,create it.Before creating an index,must also consider the impact on updates in the workload!Trade-off:indexes can make queries go faster,updates slower.Require disk space,too.Example 1B+tree index on D.dname supports Toy selection.Given this,index on D.dno is not needed.B+tree index on E.dno allows us to get matching(inner)Emp tuples for each selected(outer)Dept tuple.What if WHERE included:.AND E.age=25?Could retrieve Emp tuples using index on E.age,then join with Dept tuples satisfying dname selection.Comparable to strategy that used E.dno index.So,if E.age index is already created,this query provides much less motivation for adding an E.dno index.SELECT E.ename,D.mgrFROM Emp E,Dept DWHERE E.dno=D.dno AND D.dname=ToyExample 2All selections are on Emp so it should be the outer relation in any Index NL join.Suggests that we build a B+tree index on D.dno.What index should we build on Emp?B+tree on E.sal could be used,OR an index on E.hobby could be used.Only one of these is needed,and which is better depends upon the selectivity of the conditions.As a rule of thumb,equality selections more selective than range selections.As both examples indicate,our choice of indexes is guided by the plan(s)that we expect an optimizer to consider for a query.Have to understand optimizers!SELECT E.ename,D.mgrFROM Emp E,Dept DWHERE E.sal BETWEEN 10000 AND 20000 AND E.hobby=Stamps AND E.dno=D.dnoExamples of ClusteringB+tree index on E.age can be used to get qualifying tuples.How selective is the condition?Is the index clustered?Consider the GROUP BY query.If many tuples have E.age 10,using E.age index and sorting the retrieved tuples may be costly.Clustered E.dno index may be better!Equality queries and duplicates:Clustering on E.hobby helps!SELECT E.dnoFROM Emp EWHERE E.age40SELECT E.dno,COUNT(*)FROM Emp EWHERE E.age10GROUP BY E.dnoSELECT E.dnoFROM Emp EWHERE E.hobby=StampsIndex-Only PlansA number of queries can be answered without retrieving any tuples from one or more of the relations involved if a suitable index is available.SELECT D.mgrFROM Dept D,Emp EWHERE D.dno=E.dnoSELECT D.mgr,E.eidFROM Dept D,Emp EWHERE D.dno=E.dnoSELECT E.dno,COUNT(*)FROM Emp EGROUP BY E.dnoSELECT E.dno,MIN(E.sal)FROM Emp EGROUP BY E.dnoSELECT AVG(E.sal)FROM Emp EWHERE E.age=25 AND E.sal BETWEEN 3000 AND 5000B-tree trick!orHorizontal DecompositionsUsual Def.of decomposition:Relation is replaced by collection of relations that are projections.Most important case.We will talk about this at length as part of Conceptual DB DesignSometimes,might want to replace relation by a collection of relations that are selections.Each new relation has same schema as original,but subset of rows.Collectively,new relations contain all rows of the original.Typically,the new relations are disjoint.Horizontal Decompositions(Contd.)Contracts(Cid,Sid,Jid,Did,Pid,Qty,Val)Suppose that contracts with value 10000 are subject to different rules.So queries on Contracts will often say WHERE val10000.One approach:clustered B+tree index on the val field.Second approach:replace contracts by two new relations,LargeContracts and SmallContracts,with the same attributes(CSJDPQV).Performs like index on such queries,but no index overhead.Can build clustered indexes on other attributes,in addition!Masking Conceptual Schema ChangesHorizonal Decomposition from aboveMasked by a view.NOTE:queries with condition val10000 must be asked wrt LargeContracts for efficiency:so some users may have to be aware of change.I.e.the users who were having performance problemsArguably thats OK-they wanted a solution!CREATE VIEW Contracts(cid,sid,jid,did,pid,qty,val)AS SELECT *FROM LargeContractsUNIONSELECT *FROM SmallContractsIndex Tuning“Wizards”Both IBMs DB2 and MS SQL Server have automated index advisorsSome info in Section 20.6 of the bookBasic idea:They take a workload of queriesPossibly based on logging whats been going onThey use the optimizer cost metrics to estimate the cost of the workload over different choices of sets of indexesEnormous#of different choices of sets of indexes:Heuristics to help this go fasterTuning Queries and ViewsIf a query runs slower than expected,check if an index needs to be re-clustered,or if statistics are too old.Sometimes,the DBMS may not be executing the plan you had in mind.Common areas of weakness:Selections involving null values(bad selectivity estimates)Selections involving arithmetic or string expressions(ditto)Selections involving OR conditions(ditto)Complex subqueries(more on this later)Lack of evaluation features like index-only strategies or certain join methods or poor size estimation.Check the plan that is being used!Then adjust the choice of indexes or rewrite the query/view.E.g.check via POSTGRES“Explain”commandSome systems rewrite for you under the covers(e.g.DB2)Can be confusing and/or helpful!More Guidelines for Query TuningMinimize the use of DISTINCT:dont need it if duplicates are acceptable,or if answer contains a key.Minimize the use of GROUP BY and HAVING:SELECT MIN(E.age)FROM Employee EGROUP BY E.dnoHAVING E.dno=102SELECT MIN(E.age)FROM Employee EWHERE E.dno=102vConsider DBMS use of index when writing arithmetic expressions:E.age=2*D.age will benefit from index on E.age,but might not benefit from index on D.age!Guidelines for Query Tuning(Contd.)Avoid using intermediate relations:SELECT *INTO TempFROM Emp E,Dept DWHERE E.dno=D.dno AND D.mgrname=JoeSELECT T.dno,AVG(T.sal)FROM Temp TGROUP BY T.dnovs.SELECT E.dno,AVG(E.sal)FROM Emp E,Dept DWHERE E.dno=D.dno AND D.mgrname=JoeGROUP BY E.dnoandvDoes not materialize the intermediate reln Temp.vIf there is a dense B+tree index on,an index-only plan can be used to avoid retrieving Emp tuples in the second query!Points to RememberIndexes must be chosen to speed up important queries(and perhaps some updates!).Index maintenance overhead on updates to key fields.Choose indexes that can help many queries,if possible.Build indexes to support index-only strategies.Clustering is an important decision;only one index on a given relation can be clustered!Order of fields in composite index key can be important.Static indexes may have to be periodically re-built.Statistics have to be periodically updated.Points to remember(Contd.)Over time,indexes have to be fine-tuned(dropped,created,re-clustered,.)for performance.Should determine the plan used by the system,and adjust the choice of indexes appropriately.System may still not find a good plan:Only left-deep plans?Null values,arithmetic conditions,string expressions,the use of ORs,nested queries,etc.can confuse an optimizer.So,may have to rewrite the query/view:Avoid nested queries,temporary relations,complex conditions,and operations like DISTINCT and GROUP BY.