Loading in 5 sec....

Data -intensive Computing Systems Query Optimization (Cost-based optimization)PowerPoint Presentation

Data -intensive Computing Systems Query Optimization (Cost-based optimization)

Download Presentation

Data -intensive Computing Systems Query Optimization (Cost-based optimization)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

- 107 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Data -intensive Computing Systems Query Optimization (Cost-based optimization)

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Data-intensive Computing SystemsQuery Optimization (Cost-based optimization)

Shivnath Babu

Pick the best plan from the space of physical plans

- Prune the space of plans using heuristics
- Estimate cost for remaining plans
- Be smart about how you iterate through plans

- Pick the plan with least cost

Focus on queries with joins

- Predicates as early as possible
- Avoid plans with cross products
- Only left-deep join trees

Logical Query Plan

P1 P2 …. Pn

C1 C2 …. Cn

Pick minimum cost one

Physical

plans

Costs

- T (R) : Number of tuples in R
- B (R) : Number of blocks in R

Cost (R S) = T(R) + T(S)

All other operators have 0 cost

Note: The simple cost model used for illustration only

X

T(X) + T(T)

T

T(R) + T(S)

R

S

Total Cost: T(R) + T(S) + T(T) + T(X)

- Dynamic Programming based
- Dynamic Programming:
- General algorithmic paradigm
- Exploits “principle of optimality”
- Useful reading:
- Chapter 16, Introduction to Algorithms,Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest

Optimal for “whole” made up from optimal for “parts”

Query:

R5

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

R1

R4

R3

R2

Optimal Plan:

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Query:

Optimal Plan:

R5

R1

R4

R3

R2

Optimal plan for joining R3, R2, R4, R1

R5

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

R1

R4

R3

R2

Query:

Optimal Plan:

Optimal plan for joining R3, R2, R4

R3

R2

R1

R3

Query:

R1 R2 … Rn

R1

R2

Sub-Optimalfor joining R1, R2, R3

Optimalfor joining R1, R2, R3

Ri

Rj

Sub-Optimalfor joining R1,…,Rn

R2

R3

R1

A sub-optimal sub-plan cannot lead to an

optimal plan

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4

Selinger Algorithm:

Progressofalgorithm

{ R1, R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2, R3 }

{ R1, R2, R4 }

{ R1, R3, R4 }

{ R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2 }

{ R1, R3 }

{ R1, R4 }

{ R2, R3 }

{ R2, R4 }

{ R3, R4 }

{ R1 }

{ R2 }

{ R3 }

{ R4 }

Number of tuples in R1 R2 R3

OPT ( { R1, R2, R3 } ):

Cost of optimal plan to join R1,R2,R3

T ( { R1, R2, R3 } ):

Selinger Algorithm:

OPT ( { R1, R2, R3 } ):

OPT ( { R1, R2 } ) + T ( { R1, R2 } ) + T(R3)

Min

OPT ( { R2, R3 } ) + T ( { R2, R3 } ) + T(R1)

OPT ( { R1, R3 } ) + T ( { R1, R3 } ) + T(R2)

Note: Valid only for the simple cost model

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4

Selinger Algorithm:

Progressofalgorithm

{ R1, R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2, R3 }

{ R1, R2, R4 }

{ R1, R3, R4 }

{ R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2 }

{ R1, R3 }

{ R1, R4 }

{ R2, R3 }

{ R2, R4 }

{ R3, R4 }

{ R1 }

{ R2 }

{ R3 }

{ R4 }

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4

Selinger Algorithm:

Progressofalgorithm

{ R1, R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2, R3 }

{ R1, R2, R4 }

{ R1, R3, R4 }

{ R2, R3, R4 }

{ R1, R2 }

{ R1, R3 }

{ R1, R4 }

{ R2, R3 }

{ R2, R4 }

{ R3, R4 }

{ R1 }

{ R2 }

{ R3 }

{ R4 }

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4

Selinger Algorithm:

Optimal plan:

R2

R4

R3

R1

- DB System:
- Two join algorithms:
- Tuple-based nested loop join
- Sort-Merge join

- Two access methods
- Table Scan
- Index Scan (all indexes are in memory)

- Plans pipelined as much as possible

- Two join algorithms:
- Cost: Number of disk I/O s

Table Scan

Cost: B (R)

R

Cost: B (R)

Index Scan

R

X

Cost: B (X)

Index Scan

R.A > 50

R

Cost: T (R)

Index Scan

R

X

Cost: T (X)

Index Scan

R.A > 50

R

Cost for entire plan:

NLJ

Cost (Outer) + T(X) x Cost (Inner)

X

Outer

Inner

Merge

Cost for entire plan:

Sort

Sort

Cost (Right) + Cost (Left) +2 (B (X) + B (Y) )

X

R1.A = R2.A

Y

Left

Right

R2

R1

Merge

Cost for entire plan:

Sort

Cost (Right) + Cost (Left) +2 B (Y)

X

R1.A = R2.A

Y

Left

Right

Sorted on R1.A

R2

R1

Merge

Cost for entire plan:

Cost (Right) + Cost (Left)

X

R1.A = R2.A

Y

Sorted on R2.A

Left

Right

Sorted on R1.A

R2

R1

Bottom Line: Cost depends on sorted-ness of inputs

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Optimal plan:

SMJ

(R1.A = R2.A)

Plan X

Scan

R1

Is Plan X the optimal plan for joining R2,R3,R4,R5?

(unsorted on R2.A)

(sorted on R2.A)

Plan X

Plan Y

Suboptimal plan for joiningR2,R3,R4,R5

Optimal plan for joiningR2,R3,R4,R4

Query:

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Optimal plan:

SMJ

(R1.A = R2.A)

Plan X

Scan

R1

Can we assert anything about plan X?

If plan X produces output sorted on R2.A then plan X is the optimal plan for joining R2,R3,R4,R5 that produces output sorted on R2.A

If plan X produces output unsorted on R2.A thenplan X is the optimal plan for joining R2, R3, R4, R5

- An attribute is an interesting order if:
- participates in a join predicate
- Occurs in the Group By clause
- Occurs in the Order By clause

Select *From R1(A,B), R2(A,B), R3(B,C)Where R1.A = R2.A and R2.B = R3.B

Interesting Orders: R1.A, R2.A, R2.B, R3.B

{R1,R2,R3}

{R1,R2}

{R1,R2}(A)

{R1,R2}(B)

{R2,R3}

{R2,R3}(A)

{R2,R3}(B)

{R1}

{R1}(A)

{R2}

{R2}(A)

{R2}(B)

{R3}

{R3}(B)

{R1,R2} (C)

Optimal way of joining R1, R2 so that output is sortedon attribute R2.C

{R1,R2,R3}

{R1,R2}

{R1,R2}(A)

{R1,R2}(B)

{R2,R3}

{R2,R3}(A)

{R2,R3}(B)

{R1}

{R1}(A)

{R2}

{R2}(A)

{R2}(B)

{R3}

{R3}(B)