(Oralce) Web翻页优化实例

Web翻页优化实例

作者:Wanghai





环境：

Linux version 2.4.20-8custom (root@web2) (gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)) #3 SMP Thu Jun 5 22:03:36 CST 2003

Mem: 2113466368

Swap: 4194881536

CPU:两个超线程的Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz



优化前语句在mysql里面查询15秒左右出来，转移到oracle后进行在不调整索引和语句的情况下执行时间大概是4-5秒，调整后执行时间小于0.5秒。



翻页语句：

SELECT * FROM (SELECT T1.*, rownum as linenum FROM (

SELECT /*+ index(a ind_old)*/

a.category FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category =@# 170101 @# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND (a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends) T1 WHERE rownum < 18681) WHERE linenum >= 18641



被查询的表：auction_auctions（产品表）

表结构：

SQL> desc auction_auctions;

Name Null? Type

----------------------------------------- -------- ----------------------------

ID NOT NULL VARCHAR2(32)

USERNAME VARCHAR2(32)

TITLE CLOB

GMT_MODIFIED NOT NULL DATE

STARTS NOT NULL DATE

DESCRIPTION CLOB

PICT_URL CLOB

CATEGORY NOT NULL VARCHAR2(11)

MINIMUM_BID NUMBER

RESERVE_PRICE NUMBER

BUY_NOW NUMBER

AUCTION_TYPE CHAR(1)

DURATION VARCHAR2(7)

INCREMENTNUM NOT NULL NUMBER

CITY VARCHAR2(30)

PROV VARCHAR2(20)

LOCATION VARCHAR2(40)

LOCATION_ZIP VARCHAR2(6)

SHIPPING CHAR(1)

PAYMENT CLOB

INTERNATIONAL CHAR(1)

ENDS NOT NULL DATE

CURRENT_BID NUMBER

CLOSED CHAR(2)

PHOTO_UPLOADED CHAR(1)

QUANTITY NUMBER(11)

STORY CLOB

HAVE_INVOICE NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

HAVE_GUARANTEE NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

STUFF_STATUS NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

APPROVE_STATUS NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

OLD_STARTS NOT NULL DATE

ZOO VARCHAR2(10)

PROMOTED_STATUS NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

REPOST_TYPE CHAR(1)

REPOST_TIMES NOT NULL NUMBER(4)

SECURE_TRADE_AGREE NOT NULL NUMBER(1)

SECURE_TRADE_TRANSACTION_FEE VARCHAR2(16)

SECURE_TRADE_ORDINARY_POST_FEE NUMBER

SECURE_TRADE_FAST_POST_FEE NUMBER



表记录数及大小

SQL> select count(*) from auction_auctions;



COUNT(*)

----------

537351



SQL> select segment_name,bytes,blocks from user_segments where segment_name =@#AUCTION_AUCTIONS@#;



SEGMENT_NAME BYTES BLOCKS

AUCTION_AUCTIONS 1059061760 129280



表上原有的索引

create index ind_old on auction_auctions(closed,approve_status,category,ends) tablespace tbsindex compress 2;



SQL> select segment_name,bytes,blocks from user_segments where segment_name = @#IND_OLD@#;



SEGMENT_NAME BYTES BLOCKS

IND_OLD 20971520 2560

表和索引都已经分析过，我们来看一下sql执行的费用

SQL> set autotrace trace;

SQL> SELECT * FROM (SELECT T1.*, rownum as linenum FROM (SELECT a.* FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND (a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends) T1 WHERE rownum <18681) WHERE linenum >= 18641;



40 rows selected.



Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=19152 Card=18347 Byt

es=190698718)



1 0 VIEW (Cost=19152 Card=18347 Bytes=190698718)

2 1 COUNT (STOPKEY)

3 2 VIEW (Cost=19152 Card=18347 Bytes=190460207)

4 3 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF @#AUCTION_AUCTIONS@#

(Cost=19152 Card=18347 Bytes=20860539)



5 4 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF @#IND_OLD@# (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost

=810 Card=186003)



Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

19437 consistent gets

18262 physical reads

0 redo size

114300 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

56356 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

435 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

40 rows processed



我们可以看到这条sql语句通过索引范围扫描找到最里面的结果集，然后通过两个view操作最后得出数据。其中18502 consistent gets，17901 physical reads



我们来看一下这个索引建的到底合不合理，先看下各个查寻列的distinct值

select count(distinct ends) from auction_auctions;



COUNT(DISTINCTENDS)

-------------------

338965



SQL> select count(distinct category) from auction_auctions;



COUNT(DISTINCTCATEGORY)

-----------------------

1148



SQL> select count(distinct closed) from auction_auctions;



COUNT(DISTINCTCLOSED)

---------------------

2

SQL> select count(distinct approve_status) from auction_auctions;



COUNT(DISTINCTAPPROVE_STATUS)

-----------------------------

5



页索引里列平均存储长度

SQL> select avg(vsize(ends)) from auction_auctions;



AVG(VSIZE(ENDS))

----------------

7



SQL> select avg(vsize(closed)) from auction_auctions;



AVG(VSIZE(CLOSED))

------------------

2



SQL> select avg(vsize(category)) from auction_auctions;



AVG(VSIZE(CATEGORY))

--------------------

5.52313106



SQL> select avg(vsize(approve_status)) from auction_auctions;



AVG(VSIZE(APPROVE_STATUS))

--------------------------

1.67639401



我们来估算一下各种组合索引的大小，可以看到closed,approve_status，category都是相对较低集势的列（重复值较多），下面我们来大概计算下各种页索引需要的空间



column distinct num column len

ends 338965 7

category 1148 5.5

closed 2 2

approve_status 5 1.7



index1: (ends,closed,category,approve_status) compress 2

ends:distinct number---338965

closed: distinct number---2

index size=338965*2*(9+2)+ 537351*(1.7+5.5+6)=14603998



index2: (closed,category,ends,approve_status)

closed: distinct number---2

category: distinct number---1148

index size=2*1148*(2+5.5)+537351*(7+1.7+6)=7916279



index3: (closed,approve_status,category,ends)

closed: distinct number---2

approve_status: distinct number―5

index size=2*5*(2+1.7)+537351*(7+5.5+6)=9941030



结果出来了，index2: (closed,category,ends,approve_status)的索引最小



我们再来看一下语句

SELECT * FROM (SELECT T1.*, rownum as linenum FROM (SELECT a.* FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND (a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends) T1 WHERE rownum <18681) WHERE linenum >= 18641;

可以看出这个sql语句有很大优化余地，首先最里面的结果集SELECT a.* FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND (a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends，这里的话会走index range scan,然后table scan by rowid，这样的话如果符合条件的数据多的话相当耗资源，我们可以改写成

SELECT a.rowid FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND (a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends

这样的话最里面的结果集只需要index fast full scan就可以完成了，再改写一下得出以下语句



select * from auction_auctions where rowid in (SELECT rid FROM (

SELECT T1.rowid rid, rownum as linenum FROM

(SELECT a.rowid FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND

(a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.ends) T1 WHERE rownum < 18681) WHERE linenum >= 18641)



下面我们来测试一下这个索引的查询开销



select * from auction_auctions where rowid in (SELECT rid FROM (

SELECT T1.rowid rid, rownum as linenum FROM

(SELECT a.rowid FROM auction_auctions a WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND

(a.approve_status>=0) ORDER BY a.closed,a.ends) T1 WHERE rownum < 18681) WHERE linenum >= 18641)

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=18698 Card=18344 Byt

es=21224008)



1 0 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=18698 Card=18344 Bytes=21224008)

2 1 VIEW (Cost=264 Card=18344 Bytes=366880)

3 2 SORT (UNIQUE)

4 3 COUNT (STOPKEY)

5 4 VIEW (Cost=264 Card=18344 Bytes=128408)

6 5 SORT (ORDER BY STOPKEY) (Cost=264 Card=18344 Byt

es=440256)



7 6 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF @#IDX_AUCTION_BROWSE@#

(NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=159 Card=18344 Bytes=440256)



8 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY USER ROWID) OF @#AUCTION_AUCTIONS@# (Cost

=1 Card=1 Bytes=1137)



Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

2080 consistent gets

1516 physical reads

0 redo size

114840 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

56779 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

438 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

2 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

40 rows processed



可以看到consistent gets从19437降到2080，physical reads从18262降到1516，查询时间也丛4秒左右下降到0。5秒，可以来说这次sql调整取得了预期的效果。



又修改了一下语句，



SQL> select * from auction_auctions where rowid in

2 (SELECT rid FROM (

3 SELECT T1.rowid rid, rownum as linenum FROM

4 (SELECT a.rowid FROM auction_auctions a

5 WHERE a.category like @#18%@# AND a.closed=@#0@# AND ends > sysdate AND

a.approve_status>=0

6 7 ORDER BY a.closed,a.category,a.ends) T1

8 WHERE rownum < 18600) WHERE linenum >= 18560) ;



40 rows selected.



Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=17912 Card=17604 Byt

es=20367828)



1 0 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=17912 Card=17604 Bytes=20367828)

2 1 VIEW (Cost=221 Card=17604 Bytes=352080)

3 2 SORT (UNIQUE)

4 3 COUNT (STOPKEY)

5 4 VIEW (Cost=221 Card=17604 Bytes=123228)

6 5 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF @#IDX_AUCTION_BROWSE@# (NON-

UNIQUE) (Cost=221 Card=17604 Bytes=422496)



7 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY USER ROWID) OF @#AUCTION_AUCTIONS@# (Cost

=1 Card=1 Bytes=1137)



Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

550 consistent gets

14 physical reads

0 redo size

117106 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

56497 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

436 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

1 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

40 rows processed



在order by里加上索引前导列，消除了

6 5 SORT (ORDER BY STOPKEY) (Cost=264 Card=18344 Byt

es=440256)

，把consistent gets从2080降到550

原文转自：http://www.ltesting.net