CODEWITHSUNDEEP
mysqlsqlperformanceindexingmariadb
Alex
Alex

Reputation: 5257

Performance of query on indexed Boolean column vs Datetime column

Is there a notable difference in query performance, if the index is set on datetime type column, instead of boolean type column (and querying is done on that column)?

In my current design I got 2 columns:

query is SELECT * FROM table WHERE is_active = 1;

Would it be any slower, if I made an index on deleted_at column instead, and ran queries like this SELECT * FROM table WHERE deleted_at is null; ?

Upvotes: 11

Views: 5892

Answers (2)

Paul Spiegel
Paul Spiegel

Reputation: 31832

Here is a MariaDB (10.0.19) benchmark with 10M rows (using the sequence plugin):

drop table if exists test;
CREATE TABLE `test` (
    `id` MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
    `is_active` TINYINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
    `deleted_at` TIMESTAMP NULL,
    PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
    INDEX `is_active` (`is_active`),
    INDEX `deleted_at` (`deleted_at`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB
    select seq id
        , rand(1)<0.5 as is_active
        , case when rand(1)<0.5 
            then null
            else '2017-03-18' - interval floor(rand(2)*1000000) second
        end as deleted_at
    from seq_1_to_10000000;

To measure the time I use set profiling=1 and run show profile after executing a query. From the profiling result I take the value of Sending data since everything else is altogether less than one msec.

TINYINT index:

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM test WHERE is_active = 1;

Runtime: ~ 738 msec

TIMESTAMP index:

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM test WHERE  deleted_at is null;

Runtime: ~ 748 msec

Index size:

select database_name, table_name, index_name, stat_value*@@innodb_page_size
from mysql.innodb_index_stats 
where database_name = 'tmp'
  and table_name = 'test'
  and stat_name = 'size'

Result:

database_name | table_name | index_name | stat_value*@@innodb_page_size
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
tmp           | test       | PRIMARY    | 275513344 
tmp           | test       | deleted_at | 170639360 
tmp           | test       | is_active  |  97107968

Note that while TIMESTAMP (4 Bytes) is 4 times as long as TYNYINT (1 Byte), the index size is not even twice as large. But the index size can be significant if it doesn't fit into memory. So when i change innodb_buffer_pool_size from 1G to 50M i get the following numbers:

  • TINYINT: ~ 960 msec
  • TIMESTAMP: ~ 1500 msec

Update

To address the question more directly I did some changes to the data:

  • Instead of TIMESTAMP I use DATETIME
  • Since entries are usually rarely deleted I use rand(1)<0.99 (1% deleted) instead of rand(1)<0.5 (50% deleted)
  • Table size changed from 10M to 1M rows.
  • SELECT COUNT(*) changed to SELECT *

Index size:

index_name | stat_value*@@innodb_page_size
------------------------------------------
PRIMARY    | 25739264
deleted_at | 12075008
is_active  | 11026432

Since 99% of deleted_at values are NULL there is no significant difference in index size, though a non empty DATETIME requires 8 Bytes (MariaDB).

SELECT * FROM test WHERE is_active = 1;      -- 782 msec
SELECT * FROM test WHERE deleted_at is null; -- 829 msec

Dropping both indexes both queries execute in about 350 msec. And dropping the is_active column the deleted_at is null query executes in 280 msec.

Note that this is still not a realistic scenario. You will unlikely want to select 990K rows out of 1M and deliver it to the user. You will probably also have more columns (maybe including text) in the table. But it shows, that you probably don't need the is_active column (if it doesn't add additional information), and that any index is in best case useless for selecting non deleted entries.

However an index can be usefull to select deleted rows:

SELECT * FROM test WHERE is_active = 0;

Executes in 10 msec with index and in 170 msec without index.

SELECT * FROM test WHERE deleted_at is not null;

Executes in 11 msec with index and in 167 msec without index.

Dropping the is_active column it executes in 4 msec with index and in 150 msec without index.

So if this scenario somehow fits your data the conclusion would be: Drop the is_active column and don't create an index on deleted_at column if you are rarely selecting deleted entries. Or adjust the benchmark to your needs and make your own conclusion.

Upvotes: 22

Ramy Talal
Ramy Talal

Reputation: 91

I think is_active would be faster, but it is something you could test on a million rows.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions