Uploaded image for project: 'MariaDB Server'
  1. MariaDB Server
  2. MDEV-33697

Improve selectivity computations for multi-part keys

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    Description

      Selectivity computations can produce poor estimates when multi-part keys are involved.

      Motivating example:

      create table t1 (
        id int auto_increment primary key, 
        a int, 
        b int, 
        f varchar(256) default 'xxx', 
        index idx1(a), 
        index idx2(b)
      );
      insert into t1(a,b) select  rand(13) * 1000 mod 200, rand(17) * 1000 mod 50 from seq_1_to_1000;
      create index idx3 on t1(a,b);
      # Use query plans that are easier to read:
      set optimizer_switch='rowid_filter=off';
      

      First, let's use single-column indexes only:

      explain extended select * from t1 ignore index (idx3)
      where a between 50 and 80 and b between 33 and 41;
      +------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+------------------------------------+
      | id   | select_type | table | type  | possible_keys | key  | key_len | ref  | rows | filtered | Extra                              |
      +------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+------------------------------------+
      |    1 | SIMPLE      | t1    | range | idx1,idx2     | idx1 | 5       | NULL | 149  |    17.50 | Using index condition; Using where |
      +------+-------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+------------------------------------+
      

      The estimated #rows in the output is 149 * 0.175= 26 rows.
      The estimates are obtained from

                "range_scan_alternatives": [
                  {
                    "index": "idx1",
                    "ranges": ["(50) <= (a) <= (80)"],
                    "rowid_ordered": false,
                    "using_mrr": false,
                    "index_only": false,
                    "rows": 149,
                    "cost": 0.1537364,
                    "chosen": true
                  },
                  {
                    "index": "idx2",
                    "ranges": ["(33) <= (b) <= (41)"],
                    "rowid_ordered": false,
                    "using_mrr": false,
                    "index_only": false,
                    "rows": 175,
                    "cost": 0.17956584,
                    "chosen": false,
                    "cause": "cost"
                  }
      

      Now, with three indexes:

      explain extended select * from t1 where a between 50 and 80 and b between 33 and 41;
      

      +------+-------------+-------+-------+----------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+-----------------------+
      | id   | select_type | table | type  | possible_keys  | key  | key_len | ref  | rows | filtered | Extra                 |
      +------+-------------+-------+-------+----------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+-----------------------+
      |    1 | SIMPLE      | t1    | range | idx1,idx2,idx3 | idx3 | 10      | NULL | 144  |   100.00 | Using index condition |
      +------+-------------+-------+-------+----------------+------+---------+------+------+----------+-----------------------+
      

      It is using this plan

                        "chosen_range_access_summary": {
                          "range_access_plan": {
                            "type": "range_scan",
                            "index": "idx3",
                            "rows": 144,
                            "ranges": ["(50,33) <= (a,b) <= (80,41)"]
                          },
                          "rows_for_plan": 144,
                          "cost_for_plan": 0.1487692,
                          "chosen": true
                        }
      

      It has these estimate numbers at its disposal:

                          "range_scan_alternatives": [
                            {
                              "index": "idx1",
                              "ranges": ["(50) <= (a) <= (80)"],
                              "rowid_ordered": false,
                              "using_mrr": false,
                              "index_only": false,
                              "rows": 149,
                              "cost": 0.1537364,
                              "chosen": true
                            },
                            {
                              "index": "idx2",
                              "ranges": ["(33) <= (b) <= (41)"],
                              "rowid_ordered": false,
                              "using_mrr": false,
                              "index_only": false,
                              "rows": 175,
                              "cost": 0.17956584,
                              "chosen": false,
                              "cause": "cost"
                            },
                            {
                              "index": "idx3",
                              "ranges": ["(50,33) <= (a,b) <= (80,41)"],
                              "rowid_ordered": false,
                              "using_mrr": false,
                              "index_only": false,
                              "rows": 144,
                              "cost": 0.1487692,
                              "chosen": true
                            }
                          ],
      

      and the point is that it could come up with a tighter estimate of output bound by taking into account the estimates on a and b separately.

      Igor's point is that "keyparts >=1 do not matter for non-equalities".

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            People

              psergei Sergei Petrunia
              psergei Sergei Petrunia
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:

                Git Integration

                  Error rendering 'com.xiplink.jira.git.jira_git_plugin:git-issue-webpanel'. Please contact your Jira administrators.